- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,405
- 19,537
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Did you report cartwright? Or are you a fan of discrimination?Reported for abuse.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Did you report cartwright? Or are you a fan of discrimination?Reported for abuse.
Nope, I'm not a fan of discrimination.Did you report cartwright? Or are you a fan of discrimination?
Obama spoke against gay marriage before he was elected then did a u-turn once he got into office. I suspect this issue is not yet over in the USA. Many blacks and hispanics would have voted for Obama just because he is "black", or many would not have bothered to vote at all. But there's a large religious contingent amongst those groups that might vote based on the gay marriage issue.
There've been split decisions come out of the Supreme Court since time immemorial. You're not the first to get the grumps with a decision, and you won't be the last, I'd invite you to cast you're critical eye over every single one of them, and give me your view on each of them, and how they act as examples of the will of the people being overridden.
I got your PM.Did you report cartwright? Or are you a fan of discrimination?
I would be opposed to every decision by the Supreme Court that makes law as opposed to interpreting the law.
Only a handful of states in the US have legalised gay marriage by government policy. Most of the states that have legalised gay marriage have had that decision decided by various courts. Now we see a decision by one unelected judge that overrides the will of two thirds of the states.
You quoted Scalia.
The judicial branch is not completely divorced from elective democracy. It is President's, afterall, who select nominees and a committee of Congress people who then send it to the Senate.
If it were up the will of the majority in Southern states, blacks may still be in officially segregated schools, miscegenation laws may still be in place, and women may not have control of their bodies.
Your appeal to States Rights is advocacy for racism and apartheid.
One of these statements is bullshit.
Your appeal to state's rights is an advocacy of segregation and apartheid.I have already said that matters of racism and abortion are different.
even if you think that it doesn't change the ruling, the ruling was two parts not just the right for someone to get married but due process. Part of due process means that no legislation can discriminate against an individual.
you brought up relo's and marriage in another post. But you miss the point, Incest is crime, in the US marriage has with it an expectation of sexual relations occurring between the couple. In fact refusal to engage in sexual activity of any kind can be grounds for divorce in many states. Hence it becomes a completely different argument. Because if the state grants a marriage licence to siblings it questions the validity of those incest laws and several arguments can be brought.
Marriage between siblings is banned because of incest laws. (or at least that is what would be argued) in this case due process is afforded these couples in relation to marriage. Its that it affects existing laws. Now whether your for or against brothers sisters having a shag on a sunday afternoon its another matter entirely, the fact is as long as you can't **** a member of your family you can't marry them, same as you can't **** and hence can't marry dogs and 12 years olds.
Gays however, sodomy is no longer on the books, there is no question about homosexual relations being legal in US. And this leads us to due process, gays are committing no crime, by shagging each other, no crime by living together, no crime by pooling there wealth together, no crime by raising kids together. this is the modern definition of marriage.
and this is where the due process comes into play. The State must afford the same due process to everyone, everyone must be bound with the same rules. and this applies with all laws right across the park. including marriage, If homosexuality was illegal you would have a point. but you don't the US was founded on individual rights as well as state rights, one of the restrictions on the state is due process. Unless the state can provide a valid LEGAL reason why they need to prevent gays specifically from tying the knot you're infringing on that due process.
Pedo's, sistershaggers and horserooters are all s**t out of luck because their relationships are seen as criminal.
"due process means that no legislation can discriminate against an individual"
So what did you think about the ACT having same sex marriage then having it removed?
You quoted Scalia.
The judicial branch is not completely divorced from elective democracy. It is President's, afterall, who select nominees and a committee of Congress people who then send it to the Senate.
If it were up the will of the majority in Southern states, blacks may still be in officially segregated schools, miscegenation laws may still be in place, and women may not have control of their bodies.
Your appeal to States Rights is advocacy for racism and apartheid.
Much of the American political apparatus is designed to thwart the will of the majority. Restriction of the franchise, electoral college, undemocratic election of the Senate prior to the 1910s etc etc.
Pretending that the US is set up as a direct democracy is wrong.
Most of your type only blow the clarion call of states rights when you want blacks kept in place.
Your appeal to state's rights is an advocacy of segregation and apartheid.
I think "debate" is misleading. I see no need for a debate. There are no rational reasons against it.
a) There is no "Even if it was true". It is true.Even if this was true regarding same-sex marriage. Do you don't see a debate surrounding the power of the Supreme Court/State rights etc..?
I'm prepared to be corrected but I think, more people approve the legislation of weed, than disapprove of the legislation of gay marriage in this country.
I thought it might grab your interest a bit more, as it's here in Australia. The majority supported it in the state/territory , it was implemented democratically, and then it was removed by an unelected official.Did that court not point out that the ACT's Marriage Act did not line up with the Federal Marriage Act and the (federal) Marriage Act needs to be amended for same-sex marriage to be legal? The court just cited the law which is exactly what they're there to do.
Obviously it's a bit different here in terms of states and especially territories and their jurisdiction.
a) There is no "Even if it was true". It is true.
b) Yes. But I fail to see why that debate shouldn't have it's own thread.
Such as?That's pretty closed minded. There are many valid points made by those against same-sex marriage. Even if I support it, I can see the arguments against it.
Implementation of same-sex marriage is entirely relevant.
I thought it might grab your interest a bit more, as it's here in Australia. The majority supported it in the state/territory , it was implemented democratically, and then it was removed by an unelected official.
So there are two situations.
One is from here in Australia, where the right for homosexual marriage was taken away. vs
One in America, where the right for homosexual marriage has been implemented.
I don't know why, we in Australia, are kicking up more of a stink about what has happened in America, compared to what happened to us in Australia.
Other than the fact that one is for homosexual marriage, the other is against.
Such as?
And yes, but it has no relevance to the matter of if marriage equality should be legalised or not. That's a debate surrounding courts and laws and procedures. Not whether equality is a good thing or not.