What the hell happened to State's rights ?!

[Coffee79]

I believe we are at the beginning stages of America's break up. We have become too diverse, too different in ideology and agenda. We also all don't view America the same way. I also believe the cause of this is a Federal government that has grown too big, too powerful, and away from its original intent.

The word "state" in the time of the Constitution basically meant nation. The Founding Fathers viewed us to be 50 different nations under a very limited Fed gov't that dealt with overlapping issues; and nothing afforded to them in the Constitution was given to the States to determine.

Right now, you have a bunch of idiots in DC determining how the people of NY and Wisconsin must live and believe; even though those two states are very different.

It is best to let state's be a laboratory of Democracy. The idea of forcing upon state's laws and rules that go against the overall culture and practice of the majority of that state leads to anger and resentment, which ultimately leads to unrest.

For example, I'm for gay marriage, - but the majority of people in Alabama are not. Yet the government stepped in and said, "Tough shit, Bama !" Our Media, which is progressive run and owned is pushing unto states things that they don't believe in.

Or if you have a state that wants to legalize, say, cocaine, the Fed steps in and says no. But why not let the states do what they want ? If they fail, it will show the other states what to or not to do.

Either way, we cannot continue as we have been for the last 30 years; America has changed. It's not what it used to be - at least not a sustainable level.

 

[Skip Reming]

gay marriage was decided by 9 unelected members of the scotus
it was done on emotion and not logic
the states should decide as THEY ALWAYS had what constituted marriage.

but we give up our freedom for homosexuals
can't hurt anyone's feelings now can we?

in the end this will just bring the government more and more into our lives which is what the dems want

 

[The ScorpioN]

gay marriage was decided by 9 unelected members of the scotus
it was done on emotion and not logic
the states should decide as THEY ALWAYS had what constituted marriage.

but we give up our freedom for homosexuals
can't hurt anyone's feelings now can we?

in the end this will just bring the government more and more into our lives which is what the dems want

What freedom(s) did you give up after gay marriage got legalized?

 

[Gutter Chris]

but we give up our freedom for homosexuals
can't hurt anyone's feelings now can we?

What freedom did you give up for homos to get married ? What freedom did they not have when they couldnt ?

Why is it ok for you to be free but not them ?

 

[Coffee79]

What freedom(s) did you give up after gay marriage got legalized?

Well, the majority of people in states like Alabama gave up their right to choose their own laws. Over 70% of people in deep south states did not want legalized gay marriage, but their voices were silenced by a handful of DC judges.

Look, I'm for gay marriage, but I'm also for America being a laboratory of democracy via the states. But when the state's are denied a right to determine their fate, we become a dictatorship under the Federal government.

 

[Skip Reming]

What freedom(s) did you give up after gay marriage got legalized?

The state's right to deem what constitutes marriage which was the case since we became a country. So, basically we lost the right to vote in our state on whether or not we want gay marriage to be legal. We gave up that right to 9 unelected officials who are elected for life.
We got justices that rule on their feelings instead of the constitution.

You have a very childish opinion on what "freedom" means in the context I said it in.

 

[The ScorpioN]

The state's right to deem what constitutes marriage which was the case since we became a country. So, basically we lost the right to vote in our state on whether or not we want gay marriage to be legal. We gave up that right to 9 unelected officials who are elected for life.
We got justices that rule on their feelings instead of the constitution.

You want civil rights decided by a majority vote?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Well, the majority of people in states like Alabama gave up their right to choose their own laws. Over 70% of people in deep south states did not want legalized gay marriage, but their voices were silenced by a handful of DC judges.

Look, I'm for gay marriage, but I'm also for America being a laboratory of democracy via the states. But when the state's are denied a right to determine their fate, we become a dictatorship under the Federal government.

When Alabama starts pulling its weight as a taxpayer they can start having a say in laws again.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

 

[lts5025]

If any state should let its citizens decide the rights and freedoms of other citizens, it should be Alabama.

That's worked out so well in the past.

 

[funcrusher2007]

gay marriage was decided by 9 unelected members of the scotus
it was done on emotion and not logic
the states should decide as THEY ALWAYS had what constituted marriage.

but we give up our freedom for homosexuals
can't hurt anyone's feelings now can we?

in the end this will just bring the government more and more into our lives which is what the dems want

No , when a states vote directly sits in opposition of constitutional law then said law is overriden . Letting the majority decide what and who should have protection of rights under the constitution has never worked and would cause a really fucked up society that does not abide by the constitution. States agree to abide by the federal constitutional laws and if they do not want to (wether voted or not) then they should rethink what being part of the union means. Do I believe the federal government over steps there role.. Absolutely!!! But in the specific situation that is homosexual marriage, the states cannot deny constitutional rights to American citizens , wether the majority of voters agree with it or not.

 

[Skip Reming]

No , when a states vote directly sits in opposition of constitutional law then said law is overriden .

There is nothing unconstitutional about gay marriage not being legal....period. The justices that passed it will pass anything liberal and bring their own emotions into the cases instead of staying true to what the constitution said as written.
Shit, one or 2 of the justices who voted in favor of gay marriage should have abstained because they went to gay weddings and were too personally invested to be objective.

You want civil rights decided by a majority vote?

Where do I say this? It has always note ALWAYS note again ALWAYS been the state's right to deem what marriage is.
Since the beginning.

Gay marriage being illegal is in no way shape or form against the constitution. Period. You have to stop sucking the gay propaganda dick.

The constitution is not about morality or a changing standard of morality, it is a legal system

Now, anyone ARGUING this with me, watch this 5 minute video from a harvard law school graduate talking about the constitution and what the supreme court is SUPPOSED TO DO. The do not get to LEGISLATE THEIR MORALITY and you serfs wanting this are poisoning our system.
Because much like other topics, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. No EVIDENCE. No SUPPORTING FACTS. No reason just FEELINGS, and I could give a fuck about your feelings

 

[Fawlty]

Yeah TS and it's about time we got rid of that pesky fourteenth amendment too while we're at it.

 

[jmag]

The ideas in the OP are filled with racism and hate. We can't afford to go backwards.

 

[The ScorpioN]

There is nothing unconstitutional about gay marriage not being legal....period. The justices that passed it will pass anything liberal and bring their own emotions into the cases instead of staying true to what the constitution said as written.
Shit, one or 2 of the justices who voted in favor of gay marriage should have abstained because they went to gay weddings and were too personally invested to be objective.



Where do I say this? It has always note ALWAYS note again ALWAYS been the state's right to deem what marriage is.
Since the beginning.

Gay marriage being illegal is in no way shape or form against the constitution. Period. You have to stop sucking the gay propaganda dick.

The constitution is not about morality or a changing standard of morality, it is a legal system

Now, anyone ARGUING this with me, watch this 5 minute video from a harvard law school graduate talking about the constitution and what the supreme court is SUPPOSED TO DO. The do not get to LEGISLATE THEIR MORALITY and you serfs wanting this are poisoning our system.
Because much like other topics, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. No EVIDENCE. No SUPPORTING FACTS. No reason just FEELINGS, and I could give a fuck about your feelings

What evidence are you presenting? Where are your facts? You're emotionally ranting about libs being emotional in every post.

If you want the states deciding gay marriage by vote, then yes you pretty much put up civil right as an issue the population can vote on. You're denying rights to one group of people that are afforded to another. Based on...?

If the court, as you say, does not legislate morality, on what basis was homosexual marriage illegal in the first place?

Listen, I think the government should stay out of marriage all together, but since it's not, I think people should be granted the same rights no matter their orientation. This sentiment should be as American as it gets.

 

[Skip Reming]

If any state should let its citizens decide the rights and freedoms of other citizens, it should be Alabama.

That's worked out so well in the past.

Yes, they should have no rights to anything because of your bigotry. You are correct and not heart wrenchingly stupid with this post. I congratulate you and all the kindergarten teachers that made your post possible.

 

[Skip Reming]

What evidence are you presenting? Where are your facts? You're emotionally ranting about libs being emotional in every post.

If you want the states deciding gay marriage by vote, then yes you pretty much put up civil right as an issue the population can vote on. You're denying rights to one group of people that are afforded to another. Based on...?

If the court, as you say, does not legislate morality, on what basis was homosexual marriage illegal in the first place?

Listen, I think the government should stay out of marriage all together, but since it's not, I think people should be granted the same rights no matter their orientation. This sentiment should be as American as it gets.

Presenting what the supreme court is supposed to do and what the constitution is. watch the short video I posted and learn something.
Marriage was defined by states between a man and a woman who were not closely related. It is not a civil right if it does not fit the definition. Now, saying interracial marriage being illegal would be a civil rights violation as it is a man and a woman---the state definition of what a marriage was.

You should really watch the video and be less stupid.

 

[lts5025]

Yes, they should have no rights to anything because of your bigotry. You are correct and not heart wrenchingly stupid with this post. I congratulate you and all the kindergarten teachers that made your post possible.

Once again, you respond with emotion and vitriol instead of facts or logic.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Presenting what the supreme court is supposed to do and what the constitution is. watch the short video I posted and learn something.
Marriage was defined by states between a man and a woman who were not closely related. It is not a civil right if it does not fit the definition. Now, saying interracial marriage being illegal would be a civil rights violation as it is a man and a woman---the state definition of what a marriage was.

You should really watch the video and be less stupid.

I like how you addressed the questions I asked you and didn't deflect.

For someone constantly whining about the left being emotional, you sounds like a teenage girl on her first period. Nice gimmick, but add a couple of caps lock insults to really show your stoic reasoning.

EDIT: Since you're concerned about the definition of marriage, it was changed, and for good reason, so now it fits the definition.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

Why should a bunch of idiot hicks on Alabama have a say in whether gays get married? I don't get it.

Should they be allowed to ban interracial marriage too?

 

[sangreporsangre]

Funny how the guys who cry the loudest about state's rights were also losing their shit when that mountain in Alaska went back to it's original name.