Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
the problem with referendums pan, is that the public can't vote away civil rights. that's what takes the issue beyond the states.
/threadjack
|
But we're not talking civil rights. We're not saying gay marriage won't be recognized, just not performed in some areas. Not saying abortion is illegal everywhere, just in some places, we're not saying anyone can be denied equal rights under the law... just why force an area to have an abortion clinic? Why force a bible belt state to perform gay marriage?
The only reason is to put forth someone's power over another... that's where the anger and hatred and no compromises begin.
It's not rocket science. Gay men and women have lived in Bible Belt states probably as long as they have been states and before. They want to get married go to Mass. get married the state recognizes it, the fed government protects it... but you are not shoving it in people's faces. Whereas, you demand that Alabama makes it legal to perform the marriage and give out the certificates and you FORCE the will of probably less than a .5% of the state's population (that may want to participate in a gay marriage) on the rest of the people, you are going to get hatred.
No one wants to have views forced upon them. It's the exact same thing as if all of a sudden Roe V Wade was overturned and abortion was made illegal everywhere. Some communities would be happy, some extremely hostile. Same with Homosexual marriages as we are seeing, some communities extremely happy some extremely pissed off and saying Hell no.
To say "referendums don't work." I believe is wrong. I think when you allow communities and states to determine MORAL laws that it is easier to keep the union whole and people willing to compromise.
I force my views on you and demand you accept them, you will be pissed and want to punch me in my nose and that dear friend is what the Federal government has been doing to the people. And they are tired of it.
---------- Post added at 04:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
and that a state can't pass a law that is against the US Constitution
|
And if Alabama passes a law stating no legal abortions in cities with a population under 100,000 how is that unconstitutional? You're not denying anyone the right to have an abortion, just they can only have it in certain areas of that state.
How is saying the state will recognize gay marriages performed in other states but shall not issue any marriage licenses for such unions, unconstitutional? You're not denying them equal protection under the law, you are not saying that the marriage if performed in another state is void, just this state does not wish to issue licenses for it. You are not saying "gay marriage is illegal", you are not saying gays will go to jail, cannot get a job, do not have any rights... you are simply saying the marriage being originated in that state is not permitted.
But to force the will of an extreme minority upon a majority that does not want it, is asking for problems. It leads to hatreds, resentments and prejudices more so than eliminating them.
It's like say you and 4 other people go into a bar and demand that the other 95 cannot drink because it violates your right to enjoy the evening without having to put up with alcohol and the "problems" it MAY create for you. You don't want to drink, go down the road to Starbuck's don't demand that 95 other people cannot drink. You're not even giving them a say in the matter. YOU ARE DICTATING YOUR WILL OVER OTHERS.
I love how people say, the minority have to be protected from the majority and it is true but in the end, what is the difference between >5% of a population dictating to the rest their will? There is no difference whatsoever. Both lead to hatred. Whereas, letting communities decide their own fates, allows for compromises that both sides can ultimately live with
What's better having gay marriage recognized everywhere but only performed in some areas, no gay marriages allowed at all or forcing areas to perform gay marriages through lawsuits that cost taxpayers millions upon millions and leading to hatred, prejudices and anger?
San Francisco let's say (and I think they did vote for something like this if memory serves) that no guns can be sold in their city limits. No one says you can't own a gun, carry a gun however the state allows, just that you cannot buy one in city limits. So what's the problem? One group wants to dictate to the majority that their "right" to buy a gun is being withheld. It isn't. You could still but one in Oakland and other areas and carry it to your home with no problems. You just cannot buy it in the city. That's not unconstitutional, that's not infringing on anyone's rights. And the Left fights it like that. The Right says... infringement. The Right is wrong the Left is right.... but we spend MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars and try to load supreme court justices and politicians to legislate a moral decision that infringes no one's rights.
The exact same could be said for abortion, gay marriage and so on.
It's all about compromise, education and respect of each other. We work for that instead of against it, we can focus on the matters that truly affect our lives. The deficit, education, rebuilding a tax base and the infrastructure and so on.
But both sides want to say that won't work because they view it as being a loss of power for them.