Obama says it's OK for states to ban gay marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 5:14 PM GMT
    I was disappointed to see that President Obama has the exact same position as former Vice President Dick Cheney -- supportive of gay marriage BUT thinks each state should determine whether to ban it or support it. See Obama talking about that this morning:



    And here's an article from the Washington Post about why gay marriage should NOT be left up to each state:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gay-marriage-cant-be-entirely-left-to-the-states/2012/05/10/gIQAfiuaFU_blog.html

    While I think it's great that Obama declared support for marriage equality, it doesn't make sense to me about leaving it up to each state. Imagine when interracial marriages used to be illegal -- if the President then said "I support interracial marriages, but I think each state should decide whether to ban it or support it."

    I think it's just good to put this in perspective - I'm happy he says he supports legal recognition of gay marriage, but disappointed in him saying this should be left up to each state (the majority of states already ban it!). And Obama is certainly WAY more supportive of the gay community than presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 5:37 PM GMT
    What's the difference between the state banning or legalizing gay marriage or the feds?

    So you believe the feds should have the last word? Then you believe it's RIGHT for the federal government to go into states that have legalized gay marriage and overturn their decisions since OBVIOUSLY the federal government will always be on the right side of history.

    GREAT JOB! Guess you aren't in favor of gay rights after all!

    Hope you realize how stupid your line of reasoning is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 6:00 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat's the difference between the state banning or legalizing gay marriage or the feds?

    So you believe the feds should have the last word? Then you believe it's RIGHT for the federal government to go into states that have legalized gay marriage and overturn their decisions since OBVIOUSLY the federal government will always be on the right side of history.

    GREAT JOB! Guess you aren't in favor of gay rights after all!

    Hope you realize how stupid your line of reasoning is.

    You obviously didn't read the linked article,
    There are a great many issues surrounding marriage that have impact at the federal level. The article's author, Klein, lists several.

    Stupid is a word that is very unwise for you to throw around, Twinkles.


    It's rather appropriate when you look at the farcical reasoning being proposed here which essentially says: "the federal government making the final decision is always the right decision for gay rights and the state level decisions are the wrong decisions for gay rights and allowing such a thing is anti-gay".

    Meanwhile, many states are already recognizing same-sex marriages whilst the federal government hasn't. If people don't believe states should make those final decisions and that ultimately the federal government should trump their decisions then essentially they are saying that the federal government should have the ability to OVERTURN gay marriage and rights in states to come into line with federal standing -- since a state can't possibly know what is in the best interest of gay Americans.

    The only valid point the article raises is the intertwined federal aid involvement on many levels within state programs and institutions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 6:29 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhat's the difference between the state banning or legalizing gay marriage or the feds?

    So you believe the feds should have the last word? Then you believe it's RIGHT for the federal government to go into states that have legalized gay marriage and overturn their decisions since OBVIOUSLY the federal government will always be on the right side of history.

    GREAT JOB! Guess you aren't in favor of gay rights after all!

    Hope you realize how stupid your line of reasoning is.


    This line of reasoning is not stupid. The Federal government should protect the rights of people. The amendment against slavery is a good example.

    The Federal government is not always on the right side of history, but the role of the Federal government is to be on the right side of history.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 6:32 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie saidThe only valid point the article raises is the intertwined federal aid involvement on many levels within state programs and institutions.

    That;s like saying that one minor feature of the Grand Canyon is that it's a hole in the ground.

    There is no way to handle these intertwined issues without federal involvement---and in the case of immigration for same-sex partners, it is entirely a federal issue.

    This is only one small part of why the whole meretricious "states' rights" doctrine is both harmful and counterproductive.


    It really doesn't change anything though. Either one believes the final decisions on matters like this be left up to the feds (and you cope with whatever decision they make) or the belief is that the state decide on these matters (and you cope with whatever decision is made either way).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 6:35 PM GMT
    mayBbignow said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat's the difference between the state banning or legalizing gay marriage or the feds?

    So you believe the feds should have the last word? Then you believe it's RIGHT for the federal government to go into states that have legalized gay marriage and overturn their decisions since OBVIOUSLY the federal government will always be on the right side of history.

    GREAT JOB! Guess you aren't in favor of gay rights after all!

    Hope you realize how stupid your line of reasoning is.


    While youre trying to make a point, it fails.
    Many states have either reversed, banned or tried to criminalize gay marriage or even homosexuality altogether. Ive never heard of such a thing coming from the federal branch.


    Actually, the point goes through with flying colors while your point on the other hand, well, it isn't' even a point at all...

    The federal government FOR YEARS sanctioned all of the very things you solely give the states credit for. The federal government FOR YEARS sanctioned slavery. To pretend that the federal government will always make the better decision on behalf of advancing human rights is absolutely naive and as I said before STUPID. It could have very well been certain states that wanted to abolish slavery and the federal government that wanted to keep it. It's all about coincidence. Entities are given power to make decisions that go either way, there's no magic hand in the sky that ensures it's going to go "your way".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 6:41 PM GMT
    Jasonfest said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat's the difference between the state banning or legalizing gay marriage or the feds?

    So you believe the feds should have the last word? Then you believe it's RIGHT for the federal government to go into states that have legalized gay marriage and overturn their decisions since OBVIOUSLY the federal government will always be on the right side of history.

    GREAT JOB! Guess you aren't in favor of gay rights after all!

    Hope you realize how stupid your line of reasoning is.


    This line of reasoning is not stupid. The Federal government should protect the rights of people. The amendment against slavery is a good example.

    The Federal government is not always on the right side of history, but the role of the Federal government is to be on the right side of history.


    Yes it is, it's extremely stupid and only championed by those who severely lack any kind of rudimentary thinking skills.

    What something "should" do means nothing -- everyone has a different idea of what outcome is the "right one". Entities are given power, whether it's voters or a legislature or a judge. Using slavery is the DUMBEST example you can bring up because guess what, it was only a coincidence that the federal government happened to be against slavery and the southern states were for it. It could have been the other way around. Fast forward to nowadays: the federal government doesn't recognize same sex marriage but certain states do. To say that being in favor of states to decide the matter is "anti-gay" and that leaving the final decision (whatever decisions that might be) to the federal government is the "right" and "pro-gay" stance is absurd. There's no difference -- ultimately it boils down to the implementation of something as law.

    You either believe that the power should rest in one hand or the other, REGARDLESS of what that decision might be. When you say "I want democracy" or "I want a republic" you are enabling a SYSTEM of operation, not an outcome. We can talk about how people or governments or judges should do the "right" thing 'till we are blue in the fact but at the end of the day we decide on a "process" that could result in a variety of outcomes, even if we don't like the outcome.

    Talking about "right side of history" is subjective and meaningless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 6:59 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Jasonfest said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat's the difference between the state banning or legalizing gay marriage or the feds?

    So you believe the feds should have the last word? Then you believe it's RIGHT for the federal government to go into states that have legalized gay marriage and overturn their decisions since OBVIOUSLY the federal government will always be on the right side of history.

    GREAT JOB! Guess you aren't in favor of gay rights after all!

    Hope you realize how stupid your line of reasoning is.


    This line of reasoning is not stupid. The Federal government should protect the rights of people. The amendment against slavery is a good example.

    The Federal government is not always on the right side of history, but the role of the Federal government is to be on the right side of history.


    Yes it is, it's extremely stupid and only championed by those who severely lack any kind of rudimentary thinking skills.

    What something "should" do means nothing -- everyone has a different idea of what outcome is the "right one". Entities are given power, whether it's voters or a legislature or a judge. Using slavery is the DUMBEST example you can bring up because guess what, it was only a coincidence that the federal government happened to be against slavery and the southern states were for it. It could have been the other way around. Fast forward to nowadays: the federal government doesn't recognize same sex marriage but certain states do. To say that being in favor of states to decide the matter is "anti-gay" and that leaving the final decision (whatever decisions that might be) to the federal government is the "right" and "pro-gay" stance is absurd. There's no difference -- ultimately it boils down to the implementation of something as law.

    You either believe that the power should rest in one hand or the other, REGARDLESS of what that decision might be. When you say "I want democracy" or "I want a republic" you are enabling a SYSTEM of operation, not an outcome. We can talk about how people or governments or judges should do the "right" thing 'till we are blue in the fact but at the end of the day we decide on a "process" that could result in a variety of outcomes, even if we don't like the outcome.

    Talking about "right side of history" is subjective and meaningless.


    What something "should do" is a starting point. That is why something is created. By saying this tool should be able to cut a tree, allows one to come up with the design of a saw. This is, at minimum, rudimentary thinking. Beginning with an idea, with a function that you desire.

    The Constitution is a blueprint for a function, for a novel idea (at the time) for a government allowing more freedom and more rights for its citizens. Federal law's function is to support the Constitution whose function is to guarantee rights and freedoms for people.

    Slavery is a great example. I do not believe it is the "dumbest" example as do you. Slavery created a war between states with different ideas about human rights. Right now, because the Federal government does not have a law protecting human rights in regards to marriage, the states are once again dividing themselves on a human rights issue.

    History class exists, in part, so we do not repeat the darker sides of the past. Let us not repeat history. Let us allow the Federal government to protect the Constitution and fight for human rights.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 8:03 PM GMT
    Jasonfest said
    mocktwinkie said
    Jasonfest said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat's the difference between the state banning or legalizing gay marriage or the feds?

    So you believe the feds should have the last word? Then you believe it's RIGHT for the federal government to go into states that have legalized gay marriage and overturn their decisions since OBVIOUSLY the federal government will always be on the right side of history.

    GREAT JOB! Guess you aren't in favor of gay rights after all!

    Hope you realize how stupid your line of reasoning is.


    This line of reasoning is not stupid. The Federal government should protect the rights of people. The amendment against slavery is a good example.

    The Federal government is not always on the right side of history, but the role of the Federal government is to be on the right side of history.


    Yes it is, it's extremely stupid and only championed by those who severely lack any kind of rudimentary thinking skills.

    What something "should" do means nothing -- everyone has a different idea of what outcome is the "right one". Entities are given power, whether it's voters or a legislature or a judge. Using slavery is the DUMBEST example you can bring up because guess what, it was only a coincidence that the federal government happened to be against slavery and the southern states were for it. It could have been the other way around. Fast forward to nowadays: the federal government doesn't recognize same sex marriage but certain states do. To say that being in favor of states to decide the matter is "anti-gay" and that leaving the final decision (whatever decisions that might be) to the federal government is the "right" and "pro-gay" stance is absurd. There's no difference -- ultimately it boils down to the implementation of something as law.

    You either believe that the power should rest in one hand or the other, REGARDLESS of what that decision might be. When you say "I want democracy" or "I want a republic" you are enabling a SYSTEM of operation, not an outcome. We can talk about how people or governments or judges should do the "right" thing 'till we are blue in the fact but at the end of the day we decide on a "process" that could result in a variety of outcomes, even if we don't like the outcome.

    Talking about "right side of history" is subjective and meaningless.


    What something "should do" is a starting point. That is why something is created. By saying this tool should be able to cut a tree, allows one to come up with the design of a saw. This is, at minimum, rudimentary thinking. Beginning with an idea, with a function that you desire.

    The Constitution is a blueprint for a function, for a novel idea (at the time) for a government allowing more freedom and more rights for its citizens. Federal law's function is to support the Constitution whose function is to guarantee rights and freedoms for people.

    Slavery is a great example. I do not believe it is the "dumbest" example as do you. Slavery created a war between states with different ideas about human rights. Right now, because the Federal government does not have a law protecting human rights in regards to marriage, the states are once again dividing themselves on a human rights issue.

    History class exists, in part, so we do not repeat the darker sides of the past. Let us not repeat history. Let us allow the Federal government to protect the Constitution and fight for human rights.




    The constitution is a piece of paper, it doesn't have teeth. The constitution was made to HELP people do the "right" thing according to the vision of the founders but constitutionality is still interpretive.

    Slavery is a bad example because it plays on emotions and does not address the idea that there is no entity guaranteed to make a better decision than another. Like I said, it could have very well been the states that wanted to abolish slavery and the federal government that wanted to keep it. Who would you have sided with? If that were the case then I could be telling you right now how "dangerous" it is for the federal government to have the last word on these matters because of a coincidental path they took historically. Right now we have an opposite scenario -- and based on your logic I'm assuming you would be OKAY with the federal govt overturning state laws allowing for marriage equality (since you believe they should have the last word BECAUSE they ALWAYS make the RIGHT choices when it comes to MORAL decisions).

    At the end of the day someone is no more against civil rights for believing states should have the last word on gay rights than someone who believes the federal government should have the last word. Again, POWER doesn't = a certain outcome. We don't decide we want a democracy for an outcome -- we agree on a PROCESS of APPLICATION. People who want outcomes vote for autocracies and dictatorships who will implement the ideas that they want implemented regardless of a democratic/republic process with balances and checks.

    So yes, I understand what you're saying but it doesn't bolster the argument of the OP which is to draw some moral distinction between someone who believes the federal government should have the last word over the states otherwise it's "bad" for gay rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 8:05 PM GMT
    mayBbignow said
    mocktwinkie said
    mayBbignow said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat's the difference between the state banning or legalizing gay marriage or the feds?

    So you believe the feds should have the last word? Then you believe it's RIGHT for the federal government to go into states that have legalized gay marriage and overturn their decisions since OBVIOUSLY the federal government will always be on the right side of history.

    GREAT JOB! Guess you aren't in favor of gay rights after all!

    Hope you realize how stupid your line of reasoning is.


    While youre trying to make a point, it fails.
    Many states have either reversed, banned or tried to criminalize gay marriage or even homosexuality altogether. Ive never heard of such a thing coming from the federal branch.


    Actually, the point goes through with flying colors while your point on the other hand, well, it isn't' even a point at all...

    The federal government FOR YEARS sanctioned all of the very things you solely give the states credit for. The federal government FOR YEARS sanctioned slavery. To pretend that the federal government will always make the better decision on behalf of advancing human rights is absolutely naive and as I said before STUPID. It could have very well been certain states that wanted to abolish slavery and the federal government that wanted to keep it. It's all about coincidence. Entities are given power to make decisions that go either way, there's no magic hand in the sky that ensures it's going to go "your way".


    My point is bigger than your point.
    There were plenty of states that wanted to secede when the republican candidate wanted to abolish slavery.
    Its not a coincidence. Many times, states have acted as bad or even worse than the federal government. Ex: Montana GOP.


    What does your pointing out of a historical coincidence have anything to do with the argument at hand? That's right, precisely NOTHING.

    The federal government right now is acting WORSE than many states on the matter of gay marriage.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 8:12 PM GMT
    Obama says it's OK for states to ban gay marriage

    well...obvioulsy it is ok cuz they're doing it, rt?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 8:19 PM GMT
    He giveth with one hand and taketh with another; words have no meaning to Obama; yet people are blind enough to fall for them. sad when you fall for something just because you want to hear it, and you fail to see they are nothing but hollow words to get your vote; its it history repeating it's self politision promising gay advancement just to get their vote; yet do not really care for them at all. Then when any one speaks out against them they act like Brown Shirts and go straight into thuggery attacking those who speak out against the politician at hand; yes we have even see this here at RJ.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 8:24 PM GMT
    notadumbjock saidObama says it's OK for states to ban gay marriage

    well...obvioulsy it is ok cuz they're doing it, rt?


    Thus it's OK for him to say he supports marriage equity when he does not, well knowing the states will counter-ate on it, and ban it, thus he does not have to really worrie about it ever taking over the US; it's a win, win for Obama; he gets many of the gay votes back, and gay equality in the US does not advance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 8:24 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    The constitution is a piece of paper, it doesn't have teeth. The constitution was made to HELP people do the "right" thing according to the vision of the founders but constitutionality is still interpretive.

    The constitution is a belief written on a piece of paper. The Federal government is its teeth. The states are not allowed to go against the Constitution on their own. There is a process, in which the states are involved, to change the Constitution through an amendment.

    Slavery is a bad example because it plays on emotions and does not address the idea that there is no entity guaranteed to make a better decision than another. Like I said, it could have very well been the states that wanted to abolish slavery and the federal government that wanted to keep it. Who would you have sided with? If that were the case then I could be telling you right now how "dangerous" it is for the federal government to have the last word on these matters because of a coincidental path they took historically. Right now we have an opposite scenario -- and based on your logic I'm assuming you would be OKAY with the federal govt overturning state laws allowing for marriage equality (since you believe they should have the last word BECAUSE they ALWAYS make the RIGHT choices when it comes to MORAL decisions).
    The Federal government has the Supreme Court as a check. When the states did not want Inter-racial marriage, the Federal government stepped in with the Supreme Court and overturned their laws. This is also plays on emotion. Thankfully, logic and a structured system with checks and balances was there to trump the State's unconstitutional positions. Now we are in a similar position with same-sex marriage.

    At the end of the day someone is no more against civil rights for believing states should have the last word on gay rights than someone who believes the federal government should have the last word. Again, POWER doesn't = a certain outcome. We don't decide we want a democracy for an outcome -- we agree on a PROCESS of APPLICATION. People who want outcomes vote for autocracies and dictatorships who will implement the ideas that they want implemented regardless of a democratic/republic process with balances and checks.

    And the process of application includes the Federal govenerment trumping the state's power when it comes to Constitutional policies. One of the tools includes the Supreme Court. A state voting against the Constitution takes away rights quickly. The correct way to change the Constitution is an amendment which involves all the states and the Federal government. This way it is harder to strip away rights instantly.

    So yes, I understand what you're saying but it doesn't bolster the argument of the OP which is to draw some moral distinction between someone who believes the federal government should have the last word over the states otherwise it's "bad" for gay rights.


    It does bolster the argument. The states strip rights instantly, instead of going through the process of adapting an amendment which is much more difficult and involves the Federal government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 8:30 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhat's the difference between the state banning or legalizing gay marriage or the feds?


    Well there is a distinct difference. If you're married in Massachusetts, or any other state that permits it, you have to file a separate tax return. One as if you're married, and one as if you aren't. Since the federal government controls defense, immigration, national taxation, etc, its ban has a deleterious effect on gay people whose community desires equality.

    The only "states rights" position tenable is for the federal government to recognize marriages where they are permitted, and to make no discrimination against people who are legitimately married.

    But this has a serious problem: States do not have rights, rather people do [you're a libertarian after all!]. Why should people in some states have a material benefit afforded to others in other sates? The problem is really that the Liberal conception of the state as a neutral entity, that avoids moral proscription (on which the states rights argument rests) is really rather untenable. If the federal government recognizes gay marriage for some people at least, doesn't that mean that it can't find it objectionable? And is that not in fact a kind of endorsement after all?

    I think that the states rights answer to marriage is one that few would find either appealing or satisfactory, because it requires the perverse position of simultaneous neutrality and endorsement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 8:55 PM GMT
    Jasonfest said
    mocktwinkie said

    The constitution is a piece of paper, it doesn't have teeth. The constitution was made to HELP people do the "right" thing according to the vision of the founders but constitutionality is still interpretive.

    The constitution is a belief written on a piece of paper. The Federal government is its teeth. The states are not allowed to go against the Constitution on their own. There is a process, in which the states are involved, to change the Constitution through an amendment.

    Slavery is a bad example because it plays on emotions and does not address the idea that there is no entity guaranteed to make a better decision than another. Like I said, it could have very well been the states that wanted to abolish slavery and the federal government that wanted to keep it. Who would you have sided with? If that were the case then I could be telling you right now how "dangerous" it is for the federal government to have the last word on these matters because of a coincidental path they took historically. Right now we have an opposite scenario -- and based on your logic I'm assuming you would be OKAY with the federal govt overturning state laws allowing for marriage equality (since you believe they should have the last word BECAUSE they ALWAYS make the RIGHT choices when it comes to MORAL decisions).
    The Federal government has the Supreme Court as a check. When the states did not want Inter-racial marriage, the Federal government stepped in with the Supreme Court and overturned their laws. This is also plays on emotion. Thankfully, logic and a structured system with checks and balances was there to trump the State's unconstitutional positions. Now we are in a similar position with same-sex marriage.

    At the end of the day someone is no more against civil rights for believing states should have the last word on gay rights than someone who believes the federal government should have the last word. Again, POWER doesn't = a certain outcome. We don't decide we want a democracy for an outcome -- we agree on a PROCESS of APPLICATION. People who want outcomes vote for autocracies and dictatorships who will implement the ideas that they want implemented regardless of a democratic/republic process with balances and checks.

    And the process of application includes the Federal govenerment trumping the state's power when it comes to Constitutional policies. One of the tools includes the Supreme Court. A state voting against the Constitution takes away rights quickly. The correct way to change the Constitution is an amendment which involves all the states and the Federal government. This way it is harder to strip away rights instantly.

    So yes, I understand what you're saying but it doesn't bolster the argument of the OP which is to draw some moral distinction between someone who believes the federal government should have the last word over the states otherwise it's "bad" for gay rights.


    It does bolster the argument. The states strip rights instantly, instead of going through the process of adapting an amendment which is much more difficult and involves the Federal government.


    The federal government has the powers GRANTED to it by the constitution and nothing more.

    You seem to be making the mistake of trying to tell me "how things are" rather than addressing the root of my argument which has to do with the fact that having federal law trump state law in certain matters is not necessarily the path that results in a "greater good" every time.

    I'm not sure why you're bothering to tell me about the process. I believe that the state supreme courts, in the instance of checking the tyranny of the majority, should ultimately arbitrate the way it is going to be for that state and not the SCOTUS. In fact, I tend to gravitate towards the idea that there should not be one supreme court for the whole nation, that's too much power for one court IMO. The more variation the greater chance for a variation in the interpretation of "freedom" in this country. If one state wants to legalize marijuana, they should be able to without a final decision elsewhere.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 9:02 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie saidWhat's the difference between the state banning or legalizing gay marriage or the feds?


    Well there is a distinct difference. If you're married in Massachusetts, or any other state that permits it, you have to file a separate tax return. One as if you're married, and one as if you aren't. Since the federal government controls defense, immigration, national taxation, etc, its ban has a deleterious effect on gay people whose community desires equality.

    The only "states rights" position tenable is for the federal government to recognize marriages where they are permitted, and to make no discrimination against people who are legitimately married.

    But this has a serious problem: States do not have rights, rather people do [you're a libertarian after all!]. Why should people in some states have a material benefit afforded to others in other sates? The problem is really that the Liberal conception of the state as a neutral entity, that avoids moral proscription (on which the states rights argument rests) is really rather untenable. If the federal government recognizes gay marriage for some people at least, doesn't that mean that it can't find it objectionable? And is that not in fact a kind of endorsement after all?

    I think that the states rights answer to marriage is one that few would find either appealing or satisfactory, because it requires the perverse position of simultaneous neutrality and endorsement.


    Being a "libertarian" is an idea without practical anchor, it is about as helpful as saying "I believe in freedom" or "I believe in equality" without factoring in real life. Ultimately majorities decide how society is going to be, whether we want it to be that way or not. We have checks and balances but at the end of the day policies reflect more or less the will of the clear cut majority.

    While I don't claim to be an expert on every intricacy concerning this matter, I believe that putting more emphasis on states than the federal government provides a greater chance for variation in how "freedom" can be interpreted overall in this country. The less centralized power the better, but at some point it has to stop, either at a state or county or township etc. I think state is kind of where it settles in terms of avoiding a tendency towards infeasible fractionation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 9:10 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    The federal government has the powers GRANTED to it by the constitution and nothing more.

    Correct. It is the teeth of the Constitution, the power of the Constitution. What I stated in response to your point that the Constitution has no teeth.

    You seem to be making the mistake of trying to tell me "how things are" rather than addressing the root of my argument which has to do with the fact that having federal law trump state law in certain matters is necessarily the path that results in a "greater good" every time.

    Not a mistake. Showing you the process reveals how quickly a state can take away rights. Such as the North Carolina vote recently, and my example with international marriage and slavery. The Federal government, with the states, has to go through a longer, more detailed process involving discussion to change the law of the land. Thus, more time and thought and energy is used to make decisions that impact people's freedom.

    I'm not sure why you're bothering to tell me about the process. I believe that the state supreme courts, in the instance of checking the tyranny of the majority, should ultimately arbitrate the way it is going to be for that state and not the SCOTUS. In fact, I tend to gravitate towards the idea that there should not be one supreme court for the whole nation, that's too much power for one court IMO. The more variation the greater chance for a variation in the interpretation of "freedom" in this country. If one state wants to legalize marijuana, they should be able to without a final decision elsewhere.

    Well, we are discussing the processes in place now. History and logic shows that using the Federal government (which is designed to focus on the constitution and freedom and rights) allows more discussion and a more rigorous process involving the states (amending the constitution) which would prevent states from taking away rights in an instant. And more resources should be put into preserving the rights of people.

    Now it is OK to disagree. I am not sure we will persuade each other, but I am glad we are having this debate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 9:21 PM GMT
    Jasonfest said
    mocktwinkie said

    The federal government has the powers GRANTED to it by the constitution and nothing more.

    Correct. It is the teeth of the Constitution, the power of the Constitution. What I stated in response to your point that the Constitution has no teeth.

    You seem to be making the mistake of trying to tell me "how things are" rather than addressing the root of my argument which has to do with the fact that having federal law trump state law in certain matters is necessarily the path that results in a "greater good" every time.

    Not a mistake. Showing you the process reveals how quickly a state can take away rights. Such as the North Carolina vote recently, and my example with international marriage and slavery. The Federal government, with the states, has to go through a longer, more detailed process involving discussion to change the law of the land. Thus, more time and thought and energy is used to make decisions that impact people's freedom.

    I'm not sure why you're bothering to tell me about the process. I believe that the state supreme courts, in the instance of checking the tyranny of the majority, should ultimately arbitrate the way it is going to be for that state and not the SCOTUS. In fact, I tend to gravitate towards the idea that there should not be one supreme court for the whole nation, that's too much power for one court IMO. The more variation the greater chance for a variation in the interpretation of "freedom" in this country. If one state wants to legalize marijuana, they should be able to without a final decision elsewhere.

    Well, we are discussing the processes in place now. History and logic shows that using the Federal government (which is designed to focus on the constitution and freedom and rights) allows more discussion and a more rigorous process involving the states (amending the constitution) which would prevent states from taking away rights in an instant. And more resources should be put into preserving the rights of people.

    Now it is OK to disagree. I am not sure we will persuade each other, but I am glad we are having this debate.


    Simply put, your idea that the federal government should always trump state rights no matter what BECAUSE they will always make the better decision for "right/human rights/civil rights" and that states will always make the less correct decisions on those matters, is patently false. My position is not superior but neither is it inferior in terms of what I think is in the best interest of civil rights. You point to history but that is coincidence, not a logical pattern as we see today where some states are moving beyond the federal government in terms of granting equal rights to gays and lesbians.

    You can't say "we need more federal government intervention in order to prevent what is happening in North Carolina" and not automatically be condoning an instance where the federal government might do something precisely opposite of what you want them to do. Ex. Federal government intervention involving the overturning of state rights GRANTING equality to gays and lesbians.

    You can always appeal to a historical coincidence like slavery to try and justify a form a precedent as to who should have the last word when it comes to decisions. I am persuaded to believe that state decisions tends to result in more variation and more overall "freedom" (up to interpretation) than one decision for all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 9:26 PM GMT
    Rubio speaks on the issue

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/10/rubio_obama_distracting_and_dividing_america_with_gay_marriage.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 10:55 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    Simply put, your idea that the federal government should always trump state rights no matter what BECAUSE they will always make the better decision for "right/human rights/civil rights" and that states will always make the less correct decisions on those matters, is patently false.

    I did not say that the Federal government would always make the correct decision. Your assertion that I did, is "patently and severely" false. My assertion is that because of the longer, more detailed, and more encompassing process the Federal government has to go through (and the check of the Supreme Court) versus the State's simple vote on a law, the Federal government has more probability of making a fair decision.

    My position is not superior but neither is it inferior in terms of what I think is in the best interest of civil rights. You point to history but that is coincidence, not a logical pattern as we see today where some states are moving beyond the federal government in terms of granting equal rights to gays and lesbians.

    I use historical instances and patterns to make a logical point, you use opinions to rationalize.

    You can't say "we need more federal government intervention in order to prevent what is happening in North Carolina" and not automatically be condoning an instance where the federal government might do something precisely opposite of what you want them to do. Ex. Federal government intervention involving the overturning of state rights GRANTING equality to gays and lesbians.

    I am not saying we need more Federal government. The Federal government enforces the Constitution which is about equality. This should be enough for same-sex marriage. The precedence of equality already exists as well as the Supreme Court's ruling on Inter-racial marriage. But because State's are stripping away equality with a popular vote, perhaps we need a more specific sentence in the form of an amendment in the Federal government to bluntly outline same-sex marriage rights. This would make it harder for State's to ignore freedom and equality.

    You can always appeal to a historical coincidence like slavery to try and justify a form a precedent as to who should have the last word when it comes to decisions. I am persuaded to believe that state decisions tends to result in more variation and more overall "freedom" (up to interpretation) than one decision for all.


    I used the process of Federal versus State, historical instances, and the logical argument of probability through the system to make my case. The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment declares that states must provide equal treatment under the law. Straight marriage only is not equal, just as same race only is not equal as defined by the Supreme Court.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 11:13 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Being a "libertarian" is an idea without practical anchor, it is about as helpful as saying "I believe in freedom" or "I believe in equality" without factoring in real life. Ultimately majorities decide how society is going to be, whether we want it to be that way or not. We have checks and balances but at the end of the day policies reflect more or less the will of the clear cut majority.

    While I don't claim to be an expert on every intricacy concerning this matter, I believe that putting more emphasis on states than the federal government provides a greater chance for variation in how "freedom" can be interpreted overall in this country. The less centralized power the better, but at some point it has to stop, either at a state or county or township etc. I think state is kind of where it settles in terms of avoiding a tendency towards infeasible fractionation.


    This is historically untrue as well as utterly incoherent. First, there are very few societies [I can't actually think of any!] where wither the *right* or the *good* have been decided by any kind of majority. Far from it, in fact.

    Since we're not arguing what *is* happening, but rather what *should* happen, surely we're entitled and indeed obliged to consult our views of justice and the good life? The arbitrariness and coercion of the majority in virtually every frame of justice is not the place to start!

    You've highlighted precisely the problem with losing touch with the philosophical foundations of justice: your placement of powers with states is entirely arbitrary. Why not cities? Or wards? Or Counties? Or Regions? Your view is indefensible even within the libertarian framework—which is much richer than you bother to present—that you have perviously said you subscribe to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 11:16 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidRubio speaks on the issue

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/10/rubio_obama_distracting_and_dividing_america_with_gay_marriage.html


    Bullshit. A majority of Americans support gay marriage. It's the Republicans who are using this as a wedge issue.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2012 3:42 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree saidRubio speaks on the issue

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/10/rubio_obama_distracting_and_dividing_america_with_gay_marriage.html


    Bullshit. A majority of Americans support gay marriage. It's the Republicans who are using this as a wedge issue.



    I'll listen to it when I get home.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    May 11, 2012 3:52 AM GMT
    Meanwhile.

    We balance on the precipice of economic ruin