Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

[Murphie]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Well, I realize my comment maybe sounded harsher than I intended. I did read the post, and I get Vyuru's POV, don't get me wrong. I was merely pointing out the way something like that can sound sometimes. It wasn't intended as a direct accusation.

[Bricklayer]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

This is what the American system was intended to be: a federation of states maintaining much of their sovereignty, but giving up limited rights to the federal government. Which would you prefer: a bad law applied in a couple of states, or a bad law forced upon all 50 states? Which do you think it is easier for the voters to influence: the local legislature or the federal legislature? If you were dissatisfied living under a certain law code, would you prefer moving out of your state or moving out of the country altogether?


Because it appears the majority of voting Americans don't believe the state should recognize same-sex marriages. Again, I disagree (I think the state should not involve itself with marriage at all), but these bans have a nasty habit of being enacted when left to a democratic vote.

Didn't expect to hear a libertarian voice on this thread. I happen to agree with you on the points you made, as does this guy. His POV is fairly humorous.

[Karinya]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

I mean, tolerance doesn't mean you have to like something, just that you tolerate it. And there's plenty of people who "tolerate" the concept of gay marriage, they just don't "like" it. Which is perfectly within their rights to do.

Here's the thing though: thinking that something should be illegal is not tolerating it. It's demanding that the government the people supposedly control stop people from doing that thing, by force if necessary. A gay couple who insisted that they were really married and, say, tried to file a married tax return could in theory go to jail for tax fraud because the government doesn't recognize their relationship as a "real" marriage. That's not tolerance. It's practically the definition of official, by the government, intolerance. And anyone who votes for that is saying that the government that *works for them* should do that.

And granting rights to one group of people while denying the same rights to another group of people for no particular reason other than you think the second group is icky is *not* within Americans' rights to do -- at least, not without repealing the 14th Amendment first. The same Constitution that keeps 51% of the citizens from taking away people's guns or banning them from worshiping some unpopular religion also keeps the majority from treating minorities unequally for no good reason.

[Ziero]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Here's the thing though: thinking that something should be illegal is not tolerating it

...I'm actually well aware of that. I was just pointing out that the people here, in this specific thread, don't seem to be opposed to the idea due to hate or a want to oppress people, but rather uncomfortableness with the idea and ignorance about certain concepts. Without calling specific people out by name, the idea that Civil Unions is "close enough" to marriage was thrown about, but it was because there was a clear misunderstanding about just how different the concepts of Civil Unions is from an actual marriage. And again, people can be just uncomfortable with the term marriage being used while at the same time wanting full rights granted to those who want a same sex relationship with equal benefits to those with opposite gender relationships. I'm just pointing out how there are some people stuck "in the middle" of the debate so to speak who end up getting polarized from one side or the other, but generally want what's best for all even if they don't fully agree with it for reasons they can't understand.

[Bricklayer]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

And granting rights to one group of people while denying the same rights to another group of people for no particular reason other than you think the second group is icky is *not* within Americans' rights to do -- at least, not without repealing the 14th Amendment first.

Actually, a lot of our problems would go away if we'd repeal the 16th amendment, but I don't think the Federal Gov't would be excited about that.

[hexx]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Actually, a lot of our problems would go away if we'd repeal the 16th amendment, but I don't think the Federal Gov't would be excited about that.

And a whole new can of worms would be opened at the same time. The Federal Government exists to keep individual states from committing suicide by allowing laws such as this to pass. People by nature will whine, bitch, and moan when they don't get their way, even if it is something that would do them more harm than good. If states were allowed more power to pass laws willy-nilly, we would end up with a hodge podge of stupid laws that would be a bitch to enforce in the end. Why? Because not all states would respect another states laws, and by doing so create a legal nightmare for the citizens of the USA.