Ohio Sets back Gay Rights Laws

[The Last Rebel]

Things like this should be left up to the individual states, because what`s socially acceptable in Massachusetts or Nevada probably wouldn`t be acceptable in Mississippi or Iowa.
It should be determined by a vote in each state, by the citizens of each state.

The Supreme Court has gotten too powerful, and has repeatedly screwed over the 10th amendment to
the point where it`s nonexistent.
The job of the SCOTUS was never to declare what the law of the land was, but rather to INTERPRET the law. Instead, it looks like what they have to say has more bearing on the people than our legislature or the executive branch.
There are supposed to be checks and balances, instead we have a tyrrany by the judiciary.

[mauldooku]

Things like this should be left up to the individual states, because what`s socially acceptable in Massachusetts or Nevada probably wouldn`t be acceptable in Mississippi or Iowa.
It should be determined by a vote in each state, by the citizens of each state.

The Supreme Court has gotten too powerful, and has repeatedly screwed over the 10th amendment to
the point where it`s nonexistent.
The job of the SCOTUS was never to declare what the law of the land was, but rather to INTERPRET the law. Instead, it looks like what they have to say has more bearing on the people than our legislature or the executive branch.
There are supposed to be checks and balances, instead we have a tyrrany by the judiciary.

'Socially acceptable' is not an excuse for gender discrimination.

[The Last Rebel]

Explain to me how this is `gender discrimination`. Gender discimination would be favoring a woman over a man, or vice versa.

[General Zod]

they're saying that you can only get married if you're male or female, and cannot be married any other way. subtle but still an act of discrimination.

[Gil Hamilton]

Things like this should be left up to the individual states, because what`s socially acceptable in Massachusetts or Nevada probably wouldn`t be acceptable in Mississippi or Iowa.
It should be determined by a vote in each state, by the citizens of each state.

The Supreme Court has gotten too powerful, and has repeatedly screwed over the 10th amendment to
the point where it`s nonexistent.
The job of the SCOTUS was never to declare what the law of the land was, but rather to INTERPRET the law. Instead, it looks like what they have to say has more bearing on the people than our legislature or the executive branch.
There are supposed to be checks and balances, instead we have a tyrrany by the judiciary.

Man, you must have just hated President Bush's SotU address on the matter then. Threatening a Constitutional Amendment because the states were deciding on their own to legalize gay marriage, which is the ultimate form of telling the states to stuff it.

Besides, it is a form of gender description. When you forbid a man from filing for a civil union with another man, what are you basing that on? There would be no problem is the man was filing for marriage with a woman, ergo it is based directly upon the genders of the applicants. Thus, it is gender discrimination. QED.

[Darth Wong]

Explain to me how this is `gender discrimination`. Gender discimination would be favoring a woman over a man, or vice versa.

Excuse me, but I already explained this earlier.

Man + WoMan = OK
Man + Man = Not OK?

What is the only distinction between those two arrangements? That's right; the gender of partner #2. Think about it.

[Durandal]

Explain to me how this is `gender discrimination`. Gender discimination would be favoring a woman over a man, or vice versa.

If the government told you that you could only marry black people, it would be considered racial discrimination. So why is the government telling you that you can only marry members of the opposite sex not gender discrimination?

[Xenophobe3691]

Things like this should be left up to the individual states, because what`s socially acceptable in Massachusetts or Nevada probably wouldn`t be acceptable in Mississippi or Iowa.
It should be determined by a vote in each state, by the citizens of each state.

The Supreme Court has gotten too powerful, and has repeatedly screwed over the 10th amendment to
the point where it`s nonexistent.
The job of the SCOTUS was never to declare what the law of the land was, but rather to INTERPRET the law. Instead, it looks like what they have to say has more bearing on the people than our legislature or the executive branch.
There are supposed to be checks and balances, instead we have a tyrrany by the judiciary.

Hmmm. You can blame mass secession and the civil rights movement for that, those Southern States, with their damn obsession with keeping their blacks knuckled under, really fucked over States' Rights.

[Darth Wong]

I don't understand this "States' Rights" bullshit. What is the fucking point of a nation if the laws are totally inconsistent as you travel through it? Is America nothing more than a large free-trade bloc of loosely associated nation-states?

[Frank Hipper]

the government merely determines the rights a married couple is entitled to that a single couple is not

By imposing a religiously derived definition of marriage, and proposing that it's "sanctity" needs to be defended.

[HemlockGrey]

I think the point of "States Rights" is that the states are supposed to serve as a check on the federal government.

[Iceberg]

I think the point of "States Rights" is that the states are supposed to serve as a check on the federal government.

That's the theory as I understand it. Unfortunately, some people have misinterpreted "states rights" to mean that the federal government has no right to pass any law that could conceivably hinder any state, person or business entity in any way.

[Xenophobe3691]

I don't understand this "States' Rights" bullshit. What is the fucking point of a nation if the laws are totally inconsistent as you travel through it? Is America nothing more than a large free-trade bloc of loosely associated nation-states?

Actually, yes. There's a reason our government is called the "Federal" government, and that our Constitution states that the central government only has certain rights, and the rest go to the States.

And the point of our nation was for common defense and, yes, free trade.

[The Dark]

I don't understand this "States' Rights" bullshit. What is the fucking point of a nation if the laws are totally inconsistent as you travel through it? Is America nothing more than a large free-trade bloc of loosely associated nation-states?

Under a strict interpretation of early national law, yes. It was both legally and psychologically the case, as letters written about America before the US Civil War were almost invariable in using "The United States are", while post Civil War letters would use "The United States is." The Jeffersonian view was that any power not specifically given to the Federal government (via the Constitution) was reserved by the states, and only the states. The entry into the Constitution was a contract among equals, and as with any business deal, each partner had the right to remove themself from the contract, given due process. Under the Jeffersonian view, it was state legislatures, not the SCOTUS, that would determine the constitutionality of a law, which Jefferson and Madison expounded on in two resolutions.

As www.civilwarhome.com puts it:
"These Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions asserted the following propositions: The Federal government had been formed by a "compact" or contract among the states. It was a limited government, possessing only specific delegated powers. Whenever it attempted to exercise any additional, undelegated powers, its acts were "unauthoritative, void, and of no force." The parties to the contract, the states, must decide for themselves when and whether the central government exceeded its powers. The state legislatures must serve as "sentinels" to watch out for unconstitutional acts. And "nullification" by the states was the "rightful remedy" whenever the general government went too far. The resolutions urged all the states to join in declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void and in demanding their repeal at the next session of Congress, but none of the other states went along with Virginia and Kentucky. "

In fact, New England once threatened to secede over the issue of state rights, in 1814. How ironic that less than fifty years later they'd be the ones arguing that states did not have the right to secede from the Union.

[Xenophobe3691]

I think the point of "States Rights" is that the states are supposed to serve as a check on the federal government.

Well really, the Federal Government's supposed to show a united front to the outside world, with internal matters being regulated by the states.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't understand this "States' Rights" bullshit. What is the fucking point of a nation if the laws are totally inconsistent as you travel through it? Is America nothing more than a large free-trade bloc of loosely associated nation-states?

The point being that more local governments can more easily and specifically address the needs of their constituents.

Consider that different states have different economies, and operate on different taxes so as to propogate specific growth in their states--but the same economic practices might be detrimental in the next state.

This is kind of the entire point of Federalism. That more local governments better serve some of the needs of their consituents, while the Federal Government ensures other things, like foriegn commerce, national taxes and economics, national environmental regulations, and foriegn relations/military.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Things like this should be left up to the individual states, because what`s socially acceptable in Massachusetts or Nevada probably wouldn`t be acceptable in Mississippi or Iowa.
It should be determined by a vote in each state, by the citizens of each state.

The Supreme Court has gotten too powerful, and has repeatedly screwed over the 10th amendment to
the point where it`s nonexistent.
The job of the SCOTUS was never to declare what the law of the land was, but rather to INTERPRET the law. Instead, it looks like what they have to say has more bearing on the people than our legislature or the executive branch.
There are supposed to be checks and balances, instead we have a tyrrany by the judiciary.

Human rights should not be left to what people deem as "socially acceptable"

You forget the nice little things called the supremacy clause, and the 14th amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The equal protection clause is wonderful. Basically, the government may not treat person A any differently than person B. That means that a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple, legally, should have equal standing provided that they behave in the same fashion.

So in this instance, SCOTUS is INTERPRETING the law.

[Darth Wong]

This is kind of the entire point of Federalism. That more local governments better serve some of the needs of their consituents, while the Federal Government ensures other things, like foriegn commerce, national taxes and economics, national environmental regulations, and foriegn relations/military.

And human rights, otherwise such rights would not have been incorporated into the national Constitution. This is why I don't understand how people can argue that the reach of human-rights legislation should be subject to the whim of the States.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And human rights, otherwise such rights would not have been incorporated into the national Constitution. This is why I don't understand how people can argue that the reach of human-rights legislation should be subject to the whim of the States.

The legal right to marriage is a civil, not human, right.

Quite frankly, I agree. There's no good reason that individual States should have unique marriage laws.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The happy thing is, it is a legal contract that offers certain rights and legal protections, and as such is covered under the 14th amendment.

[RedImperator]

This is kind of the entire point of Federalism. That more local governments better serve some of the needs of their consituents, while the Federal Government ensures other things, like foriegn commerce, national taxes and economics, national environmental regulations, and foriegn relations/military.

And human rights, otherwise such rights would not have been incorporated into the national Constitution. This is why I don't understand how people can argue that the reach of human-rights legislation should be subject to the whim of the States.

The side arguing against gay marriage would not consider it a civil rights issue, which is part of why this debate will remain intractable until national attitudes start shifting.

And while others have explained the concept of states' rights, allow me to point out that without them, we likely would have had a national ban on gay marriage passed by this administration (if not the previous one) and there would have been squat anyone could do about it because there'd never be enough national support to overturn it.

[Master of Ossus]

There's no good reason that individual States should have unique marriage laws.

The "full faith and credit" clause even makes this unconstitutional, according to the Supreme Court.

[Durandal]

The "full faith and credit" clause even makes this unconstitutional, according to the Supreme Court.

But the Defense of Marriage Act allowed the states to decide whether or not they wanted to honor other states' gay marriages, basically creating an exception to the rule.

[Master of Ossus]

The "full faith and credit" clause even makes this unconstitutional, according to the Supreme Court.

But the Defense of Marriage Act allowed the states to decide whether or not they wanted to honor other states' gay marriages, basically creating an exception to the rule.

Right, which is pretty much why that law needs to be declared unconstitutional and revoked. It clearly violates "full faith and credit," so I don't see why it was passed in the first place.

[Uraniun235]

Right, which is pretty much why that law needs to be declared unconstitutional and revoked. It clearly violates "full faith and credit," so I don't see why it was passed in the first place.

I think it's political chicanery. I think they want to have a confrontation like this so that when those "activist judges" rule it unconstitutional, Bush can cry to the public about how we need this Constitutional amendment so we can protect the sanctity of marriage.

It seems like a no-win situation. Don't do anything, and the Constitution remains violated and homosexuals find their rights impaired. Do something, and the Republicans have fuel for their anti-homosexual propaganda machine.