In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1330
Online now 2353 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I hate with all my heart. That's American.
It's going to happen. This is a country full of homos.
Interesting question on the states' rights issue. On one hand, the SC can hold that states are required to allow gays to marry because of Equal Protection. That would be an encroachment on states' rights. On the other hand, the SC can strike down DOMA, which is a federal encroachment on the traditionally state determination of what marriages to recognize. Striking down DOMA would be a big victory for both states' rights AND gay rights.
So yeah......... it's gonna be awkward for conservatives to argue states' rights, considering they'd be implicitly arguing against DOMA.
This post was edited by Final Countdown 13 months ago
I'm all for state's rights and I agree that religious institutions shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples if they so choose. But I see no positive in saying it's okay for one state to allow gay marriage while another does not. Just comes off as bigoted IMO.
Remember, the only thing that changes in this country when we legalize gay marriage is... Gay people will get married. That is literally it.
Well, many states offer different opportunities. Alabama doesn't have Casino's. a short drive to Mississippi can get you there. States should have every right to decide what's best for the states and allow its people to vote on it. If the state suffers economically because they won't allow Casinos or the Gays to get married then so be it. There's many other states to pick and choose from.
I'm going to get torn a new one by saying this because the, "plight of the gays never existed," but...
Should a state be allowed to vote on whether or not interracial couples are allowed to get married? Or that black/hispanic/asian people should be allowed to live in a state at all?
No. Unless they're of the same sex.
tide obviously hates everyone that isn't a white male and hopes they all die horrible deaths. He may actually be mitt romney.
That sounds fine to me.
NO not if it happens this way, it opens to the door to even more federal power over the States. By the way different laws in different states was kinda the Idea in 1787.
Don't forget the women, I waged a war on them for like two years.
Thanks for your votes btw.
The "slippery slope" does not exist. And as for, "was kinda the idea in 1787," that's all well and good for a lot of things, but quite frankly, there are some things that just should be allowed in every state. Period.
Maybe I don't get. I associate myself much more as an "American" than I do an "Alabamian" or "Georgian."
You clearly don't get it.
Who is going to decide which laws should be in every state? See the problem?
And the "slippery slope" most certainly does exist, look at what happened with the commerce clause.
Plus the slippery slope, pretty much applies to many aspects of life anyway.
This post was edited by TroyTide 13 months ago
Exactly.....if the Feds can decide each law in every state then there's simply no need for State branches of legislators or state law. People can pick and choose what states to live in according to that states set of laws. There would be no purpose for any states. Might has well erase borders and just rename it.
But the flip side of that argument is just as big a fallacy. Saying, "Who is going to decide which laws should be in every state?" implying that it's difficult if not impossible to impose laws nationwide "fairly," is how it took so long for us to finally to things like get rid of segregation and give women the right to vote (no, I'm not equating those issues to gay marriage). There has to be a middle ground we can all agree on that allows for us to be more progressive on these issues without sh!tting all over state's rights. But I know compromise isn't exactly something we as Americans are all that good at.
As to your second point, no. It simply isn't true. The "Slippery Slope" is a well known fallacy. It just doesn't exist.
Like I said earlier, I may just be different than you guys. I have never once said I'm against states' rights, but I really don't care about what state a person is from. I'm an American, that's what I associate with. And quite frankly, my life would be a lot easier if I didn't have to catch up on the rules and laws every time I go to a new state. But if those little differences are what give places their charm, I'm fine with that. I just don't think gay marriage is one of those things.
I made a few adjustments.
Clearly state's rights infringe on local governments!
There is a middle ground. It's Massachusetts , Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire , New York, Maryland , Maine and Washington and The District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriages. That's a lot of ground for the Gays to graze.
Clearly, you're retarded. That's exactly right. Luckily, I choose to live in a county who upholds the Standard of the state I live in. If I feel my states infringes on my counties rights, I will move to a another county more fitting of my beliefs. But I'm not so much bothered by taxes, education, etc as I am about gays. So I won't have to move until that time.
This post was edited by DrStache 13 months ago
Disagree. It's a dangerous precedent but in the cases of civil rights like marriage the federal government has an obligation to intercede.
If we let the states decide everything we'd still have "colored" restrooms.
Gay marriage isn't the same thing as the black struggle, it's s stupid comparison. Gay people are fine, they just can't get married, not exactly the same thing ya know?
This isn't some emergency situation, it should be corrected but not because 9 people or less deem it so.
Really, the Christian Right's target is completely misplaced. Same sex marriage isn't the enemy of marriage. Divorce is the enemy of marriage. Don't forget, the bible has plenty to say about divorce. Anyone that gets divorced and then remarries is an adultorer. I think adultory ranks right up there as a major sin. Even in cases where the bible approves of divorce (indidelity), the divorced parties are not allowed to be remarried lest they commit adultory. Therefore, if you want to keep this a 'christian' nation, you should work to outlaw divorce except in extreme cases, and nobody should be allowed to marry a second time. So all those people out there on their 2+ marriage, don't forget you are living in sin with your new family every day.
When do Kagan and Sotamayor recuse themselves?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports