Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
The 10 commandments weren't listed in his office, they were in a public area of the courtroom, which gives undue treatment to one religion over others in a government building. While it doesn't violate the letter of the First Amendment, it does violate its spirit. Furthermore, it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to promote the 10 commandments and the Abrahamic religions they are a part of. Such a display does not celebrate the roots of the American justice system, because America is not, and never was, a Christian nation, and the fact many people then and now agree that it is wrong to murder or steal does not mean that those thoughts were inspired by the 10 commandments.
|
But it could be argued the bench is his office. I'm not a follower of the Abrahamic religions but to me, I would rather him have that freedom to express himself than not. So long as his rulings are made on actual fact and law and not his religion I'm not bothered by his display. I am far more bothered by the fact that he cannot have them up because the government says no.
Quote:
|
So, now that I've answered that, will you finally answer whether or not you think it is OK for the voters of a state to decide to outlaw interracial marriage? If you don't think that's OK, will you explain why it is OK for the federal government to impose itself on the states with regards to interracial marriage but not with regards to same-sex marriage, since neither is protects under the US constitution?
|
The problem with this question is no matter how I answer it, experience here has shown that everything will then be how I answered it and my opinion not what is truly said or the whole of the debate over government having too much power.
In all honesty I do not believe there should be any law concerning marriage between 2 people. If they are that much in love who cares. That said, I still believe in a state's population to decide by vote. it is not a power expressly given the government in the Constitution. And, with the possible exception of Utah, it probably isn't in any state's constitution either. Therefore, it should be up to the people. Let the people decide.
Now, if the federal government wants to recognize insurance and retirement /SSI/etc benefits across the board that's fine. They aren't dictating who can or cannot be married to whom, just the rights of the marriage. Now, if I live in Ohio and want to marry a guy and have to go to Cali. to do it, when I get back to Ohio, I should understand that Ohio does not have to recognize that marriage and change my will. Now if I want a divorce, the state of Ohio may nor recognize the marriage but should dissolve the it as a partnership unless a prenup iss in existence then the court just allows the prenup and is done.
Quote:
|
Also, you say it's better at the state level because voters voted. I assume you're talking about a ballot initiative. Are you only OK with laws passed by ballot initiatives? If the Ohio smoking ban were not a ballot initiative but, instead, a law passed by the state legislature, would it somehow be less valid in your eyes, despite the state legislature being elected representatives of the people? If it would be equally valid, why is it more OK for the state legislature to pass laws as elected representatives of the people than it is for the federal legislature to pass laws as elected representatives of the people? If it would not be equally valid, what does it take for a law passed by a legislature instead of a ballot initiative to be valid in your eyes?
|
Yes, I am far more ok with the people having their voice heard than government dictation. If the government imposed smoking laws and refused to listen to the people, I'd fight it. But in Ohio, you have an overwhelming number of voters saying they do not want smoking in places they patronize. My rights stop when they affect others. Them voting for a ban on smoking tells me that they do not want to smell like an ashtray or be offended by the smoke. I can understand that. Going outside, while it maybe a hassle is an acceptable compromise I can live with. The voice of the people was heard in this case. If I want to smoke inside restaurants again, I can work on getting an initiative on the ballot and work for its passage. Someday, someone may do just that and that will pass and the power in that area stayed in the hands of the people.
I do not agree with everything people want, just as they I'm sure do not agree with everything I would want but I believe in the freedom of letting the people decide not the government.