esme Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Why must you go to extremes?? people often do this, it makes me laugh!because it's the logical end of the chain you say a state can define it's own laws but who says how big a state can be, who sets the boundaries, why can't it just be one person ? I was showing how silly it was to have a nation comprised of individual states that make their own laws which are different from state to state by taking it to an absurd level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 :confused: No you're not. Why must you go to extremes?? people often do this, it makes me laugh! Correct, they just did, in NC. Not such a laughing matter though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 It isn't about votes or voting you fool..it's about the issue you're voting for that's a crime. the actual idea that you have a right to vote for or against another person deciding on how he or she should live their lives when that issue alone has no direct or indirect effect on the outcome of your own life or the existence of a collective society. But (and many people writing on this thread seem to have ignored this bit) North Carolina have not attempted to outlaw homosexuality, they have not attempted to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual preference (both of which would (AFAIK) be illegal anywhere in the US), nor have they dictated how people shall live. They have, however, declined to treat cohabiting people in the same manner that they treat married people. They treat cohabiting heterosexuals in the same manner that they treat cohabiting homosexuals. If there is an allegation of discrimination, then the discrimination relates to the disparity between the treatment of married people and that of unmarried people. ...A democratic majoritive vote isn't always necessarily a right vote, let alone the fact it shouldn't be up for a vote in the first place. LMAO! Are you saying: "Sometimes the people are too stupid to decide for themselves. In such cases, 'Nanny State' should step in and tell them what to do?" That (IMO & IME) is one of the major differences between the UK (as it is now - it wasn't always that way) and the US. In the US, government interference (be it Federal or State government) is generally viewed as 'a bad thing'. 'The People' have a considerable say in both what is done and who does it. Far more posts are elected in the US than in the UK. Government is devolved as far as is possible. 'Government of the people, by the people, for the people.' (As opposed to the British system of 'Government of the people, by the government, for the government.') Where I live, the people are about to elect the local Sheriff (Chief of Police) The district is rather smaller than Sheffield. When did you last have any say in who was the Senior Police Officer in Sheffield? - Let alone the Chief Constable of South Yorks Police? Many Brits would accept that 'the government' should tell them who they are getting as the local boss of the police force without a murmur. "The government know best and they will provide." Whatever floats your boat. Try that in the US and you'd have a riot! I guess if it was put to the vote that a father wasn't able to have any contact with his first born you'd just fall into line like the rest of the apathetic voters you defend. You may verbally disregard that reasoning as stupid, but it's no less dense as an analogy. Actually, it doesn't come anywhere near 'reasoning' but let's address your comment about 'voter apathy': Is there much of that in the UK? Have there been any notable instances of voter apathy in the UK during the past few weeks? How does the (nationwide) voter turnout for the recent local government elections in the UK (a bit more important overall then a vote on a single issue) compare to the voter turnout in North Carolina? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Yep, they don't have power of attorney in case of death or severe illness like a married couple have, they can't inherit automatically like a married couple can, they can't visit in hospital should one fall sick like a married couple can, they can't adopt each others kids and be a legal guardian like a married couple can, they can't organise a funeral if their partner dies like a married couple can Indeed. And when I was cohabiting with the lady (who many years later became my wife) in the UK, that applied to me, too. I'm not arguing for the North Carolina resolution I happen to think they got it wrong - for many reasons [including reasons we haven't even mentioned on this thread yet] but under their system they have the right to vote. As I was trying to say in my previous post, the Federal government is disbarred from interfering with the Legislation enacted by the Commonwealth of North Carolina (or any other State in the US) save where the legislation enacted by that Commonwealth is in breach of the Constitution of the United States. That's the Constitution as it stands now - not as it might read if it had been altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I like Slate after reading a lot of Christopher Hitchens, and I hope people in America take this seriously. Why Obama’s Words Didn’t Go Far Enough - Marriage equality is a federal constitutional right—not a state issue—and it’s time to start acting like it We must embrace that this is a constitutional and not a democratic issue. Equality is not a popularity contest. This is hardly a radical argument. It’s Supreme Court doctrine: Our rights to be treated as equal and full citizens do not evaporate when we cross state lines. Rather there are certain essential liberties, even in the realm of marriage, we all enjoy regardless of our ZIP code. Obama only expressed his opinion as an ordinary citizen. Some will agree, some will not. Do you think everybody in England would agree if same sex marriage (which Obama goes a point further than just partnerships) becomes a right under the law. Not on your life. The Archbishop of Canterbury would not agree and Her Majesty would "not be amused" although she is not allowed to comment publicly on matter of that sort anyway. The adulterer Charles Windsor might just go for it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Does anyone else know what Rupert Baehr is on about? Cohabiting couples? What? He seems very about the topic under discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Does anyone else know what Rupert Baehr is on about? Cohabiting couples? What? He seems very about the topic under discussion? Rupert knows, that's all that matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 ... In certain states it took an Amendement to allow women to vote. It took an Amendement to stop segregation in school. It has been done before, and I don't think it's silly to say that it'll happen again at some point in the future. Indeed. Female and colour-based emancipation took a long time to come in (and it did require federal law) but such law could readily be justified under the Constitution. The delay was not caused by 'legal argument' but rather by Congress declining to act. The Constitution talks about the rights of 'citizens' and it defines citizens. That definition does not exclude slaves, ex-slaves, the descendants of slaves or women. IMO, those who have campaigned for civil equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples (and that's what the issue is really about; religious arguments are irrelevant) would have done better had they attempted to introduce legislation which did not include the word 'marriage' (a term which incited certain religious elements) but had instead argued for a civil ceremony for homosexuals. (Ideally of course, the same civil ceremony would be open equally to both homosexuals and heterosexuals - but let's walk a few steps before we gallop ahead.) By devolving the decision to permit a civil ceremony to the states, the administration not only passed on a hot potato (exceeding Constitutional rights is probably not a charge any president would like to have to answer) but they also increased the chances of (ultimately) a ground-swell of common sense shifting opinions to more tolerant levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Obama only expressed his opinion as an ordinary citizen. Some will agree, some will not. Do you think everybody in England would agree if same sex marriage (which Obama goes a point further than just partnerships) becomes a right under the law. Not on your life. The Archbishop of Canterbury would not agree and Her Majesty would "not be amused" although she is not allowed to comment publicly on matter of that sort anyway. The adulterer Charles Windsor might just go for it though oooohhh controversial ... and biatchy. Both in the same breath. Of course, everyone wouldn't agree but we're a much more tolerant society in Europe. The UK is pretty much universally regarded as being the most tolerant of all, and except for a small minority, hardly anyone is very religious anymore. I think you're wrong about the old Archbishop, I'm not sure if he even believes in God, or that might be one of the other Bishops. who cares. We already have civil partnerships, which are marriages in all but name, and only not called that because of pandering to the religious right. I think you do the Queen an injustice, she's a great believer in family life and being married. Why do you imagine she'd want to deprive any of her subjects of the same privilege? Why can't you just admit that in this instance, the State of North Carolina got it wrong? You don't even live there, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 because it's the logical end of the chain you say a state can define it's own laws but who says how big a state can be, who sets the boundaries, why can't it just be one person ? I was showing how silly it was to have a nation comprised of individual states that make their own laws which are different from state to state by taking it to an absurd level A nation can't comprise individual nations (states) and I don't know of any (semi) autonomous state which only has one resident (there was a man-made Island fort off Essex in the Thames ... what happened to that?) The Island of Brecqhou comes pretty close. The Barclay brothers own it (David Barclay is the tenant - and a tenant is 'he who holds') and they make their own laws. Why does a state have to be big? I come from a state which is very small. - About 2500 residents. It is no longer self-sufficient (and hasn't been for nearly 70 years) but it has its own Parliament and makes its own laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.