Gay rights

[Gunny]

True that Gunster, there is currently NO constitutional provisions being denied citizens who CHOOSE to engage in the homosexual lifestyle. Should we broaden the constitution to cover lifestyle choices?

If we want to open Pandora's Box. Besides, since when did Obama need the Constitution to do anything? He can just declare it like he has everything else. I think he's trying to surpass even Abraham Lincoln in Constitutional violations.

The fact is, NO ONE has a Constutional right to marriage. As far as all the whining goes, being denied benefits by corporations/insurance companies and or other self-serving corporations is a separate issue. The left and homo-supporters just want to make everyone believe the term "marriage" will cover everything.

Too, the left cries about any and every mention of religion in government (which is not unconstitutional to begin with); yet, they want to force their secular bullshit on Christianity.

Want to let gays have civil unions? Go for it. Legally, that's ALL heterosexuals have. The law allows the church to perform the ceremonies because it's convenient for them. You STILL have to go down and pay for that state license before Father May I can marry you. If the JP had to do them all, he might miss that chicken fried steak dinner and tee-time.

[ConHog]

You said it yourself, Gunny "the Constitution is for EVERYONE". Once you start selectively denying any minority their rights for wholly specious and unfounded reasons, the Constitution is not worth the match it would take to burn it. And if you REALLY want to go down that road, the majority of Americans favor letting same-gender couples marry. Yer in the minority now Gunny. Feeling oppressed yet?

Attachment 3199

Source: GALLUP Politics

Psst , in THIS country we don't let the majority dictate to the minority.



As for THIS issue. The answer is simple.

Do away with state sanctioned marriage. Let churches marry whomever they want. For government purposes any and ALL marriage licenses are equal under the law (remember the whole freedom of religeon thing) and then NO ONE would have any complaints.

For those of you who don't want to be married in a church, why get married then? Marriage is a religious institution, so shut up. But you can sign contracts to cover all situations that would normally be covered by marriage.

But of course that isn't good enough for SOME people on both sides who want either a complete win or nothing............

[fj1200]

Psst , in THIS country we don't let the majority dictate to the minority.

Pssst... elections.

[Sir Evil]

Psst.....discussing gay rights is gay.

[ConHog]

Pssst... elections.

Yeah and how does that let the majority rule over the minority? All that does is set up representation. Elections WOULD allow the majority to dictate to the minority if they were direct elections. Which is of course exactly why our founders set the government up the way they did with so many safety precautions in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

[fj1200]

Yeah and how does that let the majority rule over the minority? All that does is set up representation. Elections WOULD allow the majority to dictate to the minority if they were direct elections. Which is of course exactly why our founders set the government up the way they did with so many safety precautions in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

There are plenty of direct elections in this country; we have a new batch every two years around here and likely in your neck of the woods too. I might argue that direct elections are best for controversial issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc. There are plenty of other checks that prevent the tyranny of the majority.

[ConHog]

There are plenty of direct elections in this country; we have a new batch every two years around here and likely in your neck of the woods too. I might argue that direct elections are best for controversial issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc. There are plenty of other checks that prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Those aren't direct elections which allow the majority to do anything more than elect a representative who may or may not agree with the majority who even elected him on many issues, and even if they do it's unlikely a big enough majority could get together to elect enough like minded folks to push their agenda. Meaning the majority are prevented from ruling the minority.

I might argue that gay marriage and abortion are areas the government should stay out of to begin with.

[fj1200]

Those aren't direct elections which allow the majority to do anything more than elect a representative who may or may not agree with the majority who even elected him on many issues, and even if they do it's unlikely a big enough majority could get together to elect enough like minded folks to push their agenda. Meaning the majority are prevented from ruling the minority.

I might argue that gay marriage and abortion are areas the government should stay out of to begin with.

I agree with you on marriage, it's no place for government, not abortion however. There needs to be regulation with medical procedures.

Re: Direct Elections, does AR not have propositions, constitutional amendments, etc. on the ballot every two years like most other states? It seems that they do; 2010 for example. All they need to do is meet the minimum requirements to get on the ballot.

[ConHog]

I agree with you on marriage, it's no place for government, not abortion however. There needs to be regulation with medical procedures.

Re: Direct Elections, does AR not have propositions, constitutional amendments, etc. on the ballot every two years like most other states? It seems that they do; 2010 for example. All they need to do is meet the minimum requirements to get on the ballot.

Regulation? Sure, but the government shouldn't be deciding the morality of the issue. I mean I see them having a direct say in when life begins so that they can regulate when abortion becomes murder I suppose. But they should not be getting into the business of declaring that some women can get abortions and some can not. They should simply set a definitive point on when life begins as far as the government is concerned, and go on.

Sure we have propositions and constitutional amendments, but even with those they are reviewed by the Court here in Arkansas, just as every state, and the majority are not allowed to trample over the minority simply because they want to. I guess in the abstract if people collected enough votes they possibly could nullify the first amendment even, but we both know that isn' likely because our government contains to many safeguards, you wouldn't need just a majority , you would need an ultra super majority to do so, one that by our very diverse population isn't likely to EVER be had.

[cadet]

I agree with you on marriage, it's no place for government, not abortion however. There needs to be regulation with medical procedures.

Re: Direct Elections, does AR not have propositions, constitutional amendments, etc. on the ballot every two years like most other states? It seems that they do; 2010 for example. All they need to do is meet the minimum requirements to get on the ballot.

Gov't medical procedures my ass. Like Uncle Sam doesn't already have his fingers in everything, they already have "medical procedures" for abortion.
believe it or not, the vast majority (100%) of hospitals know what they're doing.

[fj1200]

Gov't medical procedures my ass. Like Uncle Sam doesn't already have his fingers in everything, they already have "medical procedures" for abortion.
believe it or not, the vast majority (100%) of hospitals know what they're doing.

You don't want regulations re: medical? Not exactly a "gay rights" topic so I didn't expand.

Regulation? Sure, but the government shouldn't be deciding the morality of the issue. I mean I see them having a direct say in when life begins so that they can regulate when abortion becomes murder I suppose. But they should not be getting into the business of declaring that some women can get abortions and some can not. They should simply set a definitive point on when life begins as far as the government is concerned, and go on.

That is dictating morality to some.

Sure we have propositions and constitutional amendments, but even with those they are reviewed by the Court here in Arkansas, just as every state, and the majority are not allowed to trample over the minority simply because they want to. I guess in the abstract if people collected enough votes they possibly could nullify the first amendment even, but we both know that isn' likely because our government contains to many safeguards, you wouldn't need just a majority , you would need an ultra super majority to do so, one that by our very diverse population isn't likely to EVER be had.

Thanks for agreeing that the majority "dictates," subject to the same safeguards employed against the legislature, for example, of course.

[Gunny]

Pssst... elections.

Legislating from the bench does an end around on true legislation. Pretending it doesn't is just more to the dishonest arguments of gays and their enablers. Same crowd tried to pretend there's no slippery slope either. Well, except for that one I've been watching this country go down for 50 years.

[ConHog]

You don't want regulations re: medical? Not exactly a "gay rights" topic so I didn't expand.

What you don't think that doctors would do the right thing medically every time anymore than businesses would do the right thing without SOME form of government regulations?

Me either

[Gunny]

I agree with you on marriage, it's no place for government, not abortion however. There needs to be regulation with medical procedures.

Re: Direct Elections, does AR not have propositions, constitutional amendments, etc. on the ballot every two years like most other states? It seems that they do; 2010 for example. All they need to do is meet the minimum requirements to get on the ballot.

Abortion is covered by the 10th Amendment and should be left up to the individual states. It is NOT covered by the Constitution. And EVERY F-ING TIME the left uses the judiciary to backdoor the Constitution. It's BS. Period. Marriage AND abortion are BOTH state issues.

[ConHog]

Abortion is covered by the 10th Amendment and should be left up to the individual states. It is NOT covered by the Constitution. And EVERY F-ING TIME the left uses the judiciary to backdoor the Constitution. It's BS. Period. Marriage AND abortion are BOTH state issues.

You're , I THINK, missing the point of both FJ and myself. For me anyway, I don't believe marriage and or abortion either one should the business of ANY government.

either abortion is murder or it isn't. IF it isn't , then no government has a role in it. As for marriage, the government has NO legitimate reason to be involved, no matter the level of government.

FJ , if I've misread you here, my apologies.