RootsBooster Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Surely "the gays" should be happy at this news. The only advantage I can see about being gay is not having to get married. Well that and a far higher joint income. Where do you live and why does every straight couple there have to get married? If you chose a life outside "social and religious norms" why then fight to be a part of them? It's as ridiculous as moving to the uk and then wanting to impose sharia law here. No, it's nothing like that at all, it's more like moving to the UK and then wanting to get married in the UK. It wouldn't affect anybody else at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 This is very, very, very, extremely disappointing for me to read about. What is happening to the USA these days? What with the undercurrent against women and now this! In the 50s we were brought up and fed the propaganda that the USA was a forward looking, forward thinking, egalatarian society where Jack was as good as his master, and everyone had a fair go. It goes against everything we believed in about the good ole USA. What's going to happen to the people who are already in a civil partnership? Does this mean that they have to move out of state and that no-one can move in either? If already 30 states have gone for discrimination and prejudice, where is there going to be for dissenters to live? I feel so disappointed and let down. You mean the 1950s which held the McArthy witchunt,saw the Korean peninsular occupied,perpetuated an informal apartheid in the south,and had yet to award an Oscar to black(male) actors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 We dont need you suggesting how to run the country. We've managed quite well since kicking out King George awhile back. If anyone in America dared to voice an opinion on European affairs they would soon be told to mind their own business in short order. Works both ways I really don't think they would, they'd either be listened to or just ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 You mean the 1950s which held the McArthy witchunt,saw the Korean peninsular occupied,perpetuated an informal apartheid in the south,and had yet to award an Oscar to black(male) actors.Yeah that as well! But as we're now in the 21stc, and that is in the past, can we be excused for attempting to concentrate on what's happening right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 We dont need you suggesting how to run the country. We've managed quite well since kicking out King George awhile back. If anyone in America dared to voice an opinion on European affairs they would soon be told to mind their own business in short order. Works both ways I hardly count the provocation of Arab militants and numerous episodes in Vietnam ,the Middle East,and Latin American as smart.The needless bombing of Japan exposed the callousness of the USA,Pearl Harbour its naivite,Ronald Reagan its gullibilty.The USA is the most inward looking nation,and most Americans cannot identify three other countries from their shape,one being the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 The popular vote is the right of every citizen and the voters passed the ban with 61 percent in favour of the ban. The people therefore have spoken. North Carolina has also the right to pass certain of it's own laws just so long as those laws do not violate the Constitution and there's nothing in the Constitution that says gay marriage/partnerships is protected by the Constitution. They dont need foreigners telling them how to run their affairs either I don't think people are telling others how to run their affairs, they're just commenting upon their decisions. Also how would you feel if the popular vote decided to remove rights from another minority, say the Jewish population? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Personally i think Obama's latest remarks on the same sex marriage subject may go against him, which would be ashame in my opinion.Can't see him being re-elected though. Obama's problem is his Vice President Joe Biden. Biden has a history of running off at the mouth and causing embarassment in various quarters. His latest statement of a few days ago advocating gay marriage put Obama on the spot. You cant have a VP voicing one opinion and a President remaining mute in response. This gives the impression that he disagrees with what his VP thinks and the press always with an ear close to the White House and it's doings willI make a big issue out of it I dont know what Obama really thinks about gay marriage. On that issue he chose to stay quiet which was probably the best policy on such a sensitive subject but now he's had to speak. It could impact him negatively as a large segment of church going blacks as well as their white counterparts will view this unfavourably and then the Hispanic voters who are traditionally Catholic and conservative on family issues may not even bother to vote for him at all. Obama needs to summon Biden to the White House, give him a severe ear slapping then try and dump him and replace him with Hillary Clinton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I don't think people are telling others how to run their affairs, they're just commenting upon their decisions. Also how would you feel if the popular vote decided to remove rights from another minority, say the Jewish population? First of all you cannot remove a right that did not exist in the first place and the right to same sex marriage was as I've repeatedly said already not part of the Constitution... yet. You use "rights of Jews" naively. The Cosnstitution from the beginning has clearly stated that all men are born equal and that includes any and all religious persuasions. It has been abused in the past I'll readily admit but that's not applicable in this day and age nor to this discussion and such a vote to deprive an ethnic minority of their rights is a moot point anyway. The subject of same sex marriage is so divisive on a huge scale in a country that is still very much religiously inclined is far too complicated for Congress to pass any laws on. It would need to be debated exhaustively by the nine judges in the Supreme Court who are tasked on deciding if such an issue is within the bounds of Constitutional rights and quite honestly I think it's too much of a hot potato at the moment. In the meantime states are better off voting on it individually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 .................................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 It's unconstitutional also to deny the vote to people who disagree with a measure that they happen to believe is wrong. They can believe it wrong until the cows come home. At no point does the legal status of another person's relationship affect any else's life, and there is no sensible reason for stopping them. No vote can ever justify the denial of liberty. This will go to the Supreme Court, no doubt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.