The Fair and Balanced ACLU. These guys are SO funny!

[lasersailor184]

But you just said that you are OK with the seperate states deciding on issues like gay marriage.  What you really meant to say was that you are OK with Democrats of each state deciding on issues like gay marriage.


Wouldn't it be most logical for the residents to decide for themselves what would be a right in their state or not? 

Of course it wouldn't.  That's why we have liberal judges making laughable decisions deciding that the people shouldn't get what they want.

[Toad]

Prop 22 was overturned by the Cal SC which is how the system is allowed to work.

Prop 8 will be on the ballot in November which will try to overturn the Cal SC decision, which is how the system is allowed to work.

Look at it this way MT; if the people vote to ban it, those desiring it can move to MA.  See? Isn't it great there are 50 states?

[midnight Target]

But you just said that you are OK with the seperate states deciding on issues like gay marriage.  What you really meant to say was that you are OK with Democrats of each state deciding on issues like gay marriage.


Wouldn't it be most logical for the residents to decide for themselves what would be a right in their state or not? 

Of course it wouldn't.  That's why we have liberal judges making laughable decisions deciding that the people shouldn't get what they want.

1. I never said that.
2. If it were left up to strict majority rule, minorities would never have rights.

[Toad]

They'd have their US Constitutionally guaranteed rights, like <back on topic> the right to keep and bear arms and all the others incorporated under the 14th.

Unfortunately, I don't remember anything about marriage in our Constitution do you? Must be the Founders left that up to the individual states, as they did with so many other things.

[lazs2]

whoa there carrel...  I have always said that the only thing government should do is to raise armies and provide a court system and maybe some  police to enforce it.

Now..  so far as abortion goes.. even you will have to admit that at some point.. you are simply killing another human being...

Now, as I have said in the past..  there are human beings that NEED killing.   I can't for the life of me think of the crime the unborn are committing that I can give them a death sentence for.   At some point a womans right to choose should end.. lest your mom could simply send someone over to your house to kill you.

This being murdered for no reason thing.. well.. that is something government should have a say in and the constitution should protect us from states rights on it.   the constitution trumps states rights.   interpretation is the sticking point of course but..  there is always secession.  If you carrel wish to find me inconsistent that may be possible yet but you haven't even come close on this one.

As for civil rights..  the constitution should protect civil rights so far as..  all men are created equal.

Gay marriage is stretching civil rights so far past the breaking point that is is ludicrous..  it is like saying that not printing all government documents in swedish is a civil rights issue.

Marriage itself.. or at least the state sponsored extortion of benifiets for it (tax breaks etc.)  may be a violation of our civil rights but restricting it to a man and a woman is not.. adding homos to the list of people makes it worse.

The better question should be.. do we allow any married couple extra benifiets?    If so..  why?  And how do we justify giving em them a tax break?   we do because it is behavior we want to encourage (like home ownership) because we feel we will get something from it.   children born and raised in the best possible way. 

If we add homos.. we make it more unfair not less.   it is now just whim... no logic at all.. it would be far more logical...  and every bit as much of a civil rights issue to allow polygamy.  any of a myriad of relationships possible are now being short changed in light of the ridiculous homosexual BS.

lazs

[mietla]

2. If it were left up to strict majority rule, minorities would never have rights.

and yet, we have a majority deciding how much to tax the minority. That is ok with you, huh?

[lasersailor184]

and yet, we have a majority deciding how much to tax the minority. That is ok with you, huh?

You got that backwards.


Wait, no you don't.  Very cleverly worded.

[RedTop]

The ACLU getting blasted is a laugh enough for me.

[LePaul]

Leaving civil rights issues up to a majority vote is just plain stupid.

Works that way in Congress.  Senate.  A Jury of your peers, etc...

It seems the civil rights you wish to impose on the majority aren't needed nor desired by the majority.

We already have to cow tow to the minorities enough around here.  Don't beleive me?  Call any major business and wait for the language options.

[mietla]

press 1 for English

It is f*nkg insulting

[RedTop]

press 1 for English

It is f*nkg insulting

Could be #2.....

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Could be #2.....

It IS, in MANY places.

[midnight Target]

So the Jim Crow laws in the South were OK with you guys as long as the majority approved of them? Amazing.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

So the Jim Crow laws in the South were OK with you guys as long as the majority approved of them? Amazing.

Those laws were not Constitutional. End of story.

[lazs2]

jim crow laws were wrong.   All men are created equal.   The states have no right to over rule the constitution.  If they don't like it they can.. well.. should be able to..  leave.

You can't equate equality of outcome with equality of opportunity tho.   

It is more discriminatory to not allow polygamy than it is to not allow gay marriage if you use the intent of marriage as a guide.

schools and marriage are both things that the government should stay out of.   But then.. we should not be taxed for a general fund either.   Any tax should be raised as an enterprise fund and used to pay for the exact thing it is raised for..  example.. road tax should be used only to build and maintain roads.

The ACLU has made a good living in missinterpreting the constitution and stretching the meaning of civil liberties to the breaking point...   they are inconsistent tho when it comes to the second and even the most basic interpretation of our rights.. they ignore our most basic rights when it comes to the second yet go into minute and...  tenuous detail on the others...  so long as it attacks religion or gives one group extra rights over another.

Their agenda has just become more clear to more people...  just as I had predicted it would.

lazs