Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 01:56:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States"  (Read 11359 times)
Gamecock
Rookie
**
Posts: 128
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 25, 2013, 03:58:26 PM »

Agreed that the state's rights rhetoric is applicable for certain things, but not for a nationwide issue of equality. Rubio should have said something to the effect of, "my personal beliefs will in no way shape or form discriminate against having equal protection under the federal law for ALL American citizens." In fact, I think all conservatives can and should get behind that even if they oppose it on a personal level.

How do you want Rubio to do that? It isn't as if congress can pass a bill declaring homosexual marriage legal. If you want "nationwide equality" or whatever, your either going to have to wait for the SC to somehow declare it a constitutional right, or pass a constitutional amendment.
Logged
auburntiger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,233
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.61, S: 0.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 25, 2013, 04:51:50 PM »

Well, for starters, that's the way things are headed, and Republicans better realize that. I can see the SC overturning DOMA within the year or next (remember 4 states passed this already). It would be good for them to stop fighting the inevitable. If you were to ask me where I stand, it's this: While I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, I believe that we have the freedom to live the life we choose to live. With that, all American citizens deserve equal protection under the law.

Rubio, like some Republcians, are already beginning to change their tone on this issue. I don't think he really believes that it's a states rights issue, and I would call on him to just be honest about it.

I don't think my position is that out of the mainstream. I would encourage other conservatives to adopt this as well. As a party, we preach the core issues of personal responsibility, personal freedom, and liberty and justice for all. It's about time we start walking the walk.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 25, 2013, 07:32:13 PM »

It's a small step in the right direction, but I'm not sure its genuine.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,837
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2013, 05:41:10 AM »

Agreed that the state's rights rhetoric is applicable for certain things, but not for a nationwide issue of equality. Rubio should have said something to the effect of, "my personal beliefs will in no way shape or form discriminate against having equal protection under the federal law for ALL American citizens." In fact, I think all conservatives can and should get behind that even if they oppose it on a personal level.

States Rights cannot trump God-given human rights (or if one is not a theist, rights inherent in humanness). A hell-hole anywhere in America is a legitimate concern for us all. States rights cannot be an excuse for corruption or lawlessness. They must not be an excuse for a race to the bottom.

The direction is clear; Americans are becoming more tolerant of homosexual rights at the same time that they become increasingly intolerant of spouse abuse and child sexual abuse. It is only a matter of time.

 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 27, 2013, 08:48:48 PM »

The direction is clear; Americans are becoming more tolerant of homosexual rights at the same time that they become increasingly intolerant of spouse abuse and child sexual abuse. It is only a matter of time.

Are you asserting a link between these three trends or just commenting on their current temporal correlation?
Logged
Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!
ModernBourbon Democrat
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,267


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 01, 2013, 05:55:43 PM »

Why does the government have anything to do with marriage again? I should be able to marry my dog if I want, so why can't it be a legal contract that people agree to, with no tax effects or anything?
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 01, 2013, 06:51:11 PM »

Why does the government have anything to do with marriage again? I should be able to marry my dog if I want, so why can't it be a legal contract that people agree to, with no tax effects or anything?

Because gays getting married is an abomination to the sanctity and beauty of marriage. Even though Kim Kardashian put the final nail in that coffin.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 01, 2013, 09:51:10 PM »

Why does the government have anything to do with marriage again? I should be able to marry my dog if I want, so why can't it be a legal contract that people agree to, with no tax effects or anything?

No, you can't marry a dog because dogs can't sign contracts.
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 02, 2013, 06:39:09 PM »
« Edited: March 02, 2013, 06:40:52 PM by Tik »

I didn't read the whole thread so i apologise if someone else stated this, but Rubio's position makes little sense to me. An amendment would require most of the states to ratify it to become law, therefore the states do get a say in it. An amendment is far better for states rights than a federal statute. All of the states would have a say. I understand that perhaps states rights are usurped if they vote differently than the end result, but on this issue it just makes sense for all states to have the same general law for logistics sake.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 02, 2013, 07:02:56 PM »

An amendment is far better for states rights than a federal statute. All of the states would have a say.

But it would be a one time say to get the amendment passed, and then you'd need 3/4ths of the states to ever get it repealed.

Imagine if an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment had passed in the 1990s.  You could have, hypothetically had 3/4ths of the states go along with it at that time.  We would now have zero states with gay marriage in 2013, even if some of them wanted to pass it, because the constitution would forbid it.  You'd need 3/4ths of the states once again to repeal the amendment, and that would be unlikely to happen any time soon.
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: March 02, 2013, 11:07:07 PM »

An amendment is far better for states rights than a federal statute. All of the states would have a say.

But it would be a one time say to get the amendment passed, and then you'd need 3/4ths of the states to ever get it repealed.

Imagine if an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment had passed in the 1990s.  You could have, hypothetically had 3/4ths of the states go along with it at that time.  We would now have zero states with gay marriage in 2013, even if some of them wanted to pass it, because the constitution would forbid it.  You'd need 3/4ths of the states once again to repeal the amendment, and that would be unlikely to happen any time soon.


Well yes, that would've been awful. So awful I'm surprised they didn't do it. All I'm saying is that the Rube's logic doesn't make sense. An amendment's process of being adopted fits nicely with the idea of state's rights overall. It also has the added benefits of bringing consistency to the law and requiring a nice majority to being adopted.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: March 02, 2013, 11:36:33 PM »

An amendment's process of being adopted fits nicely with the idea of state's rights overall.

I don't see how.  We're talking about an amendment that would specifically take rights away from states.  There's an area of the law on which states currently have a free hand to do as they please, and that would be taken away from them with such an amendment.  Now, yes, a supermajority of the states would have to sign onto the amendment in the first place, but they'd basically be passing it to tie their own hands, so that they can't pass gay marriage in the future.  Not sure how that's consistent with states' rights.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: March 02, 2013, 11:59:56 PM »

This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the gay community accept that some places just will not allow them to marry based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.

Doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, he's on the winning side.

No he's not on the winning side. Eternity will judge this one vastly differently than He did racial civil rights.

Not 'Eternity' (whatever that is), history, and all signs point to gay rights being here to stay. Provide any shred of evidence suggesting a reversal from the present course.

I remember what happened to perceptions of gays and gay rights when AIDS started in America in the early 1980s. If society sees a new and deadly STD, one even worse and more contagious than AIDS, come onto the gay scene, all of the current progress will be obliterated. Signs are discouraging. For example, drug-resistant gonorrhea is starting to spread particularly among gay males. Infections of almost all STDs are on the rise with respect to gay males and females who engage in anal sex. It is all quite reminiscient of the late 1970s, so I will not be the least bit surprised if another killer STD is around the corner, the next 5-10 years, if current trends continue.

The worst part: A lot of pain and suffering could be avoided if everybody properly used condoms all of the time.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2013, 06:47:08 PM »

I remember what happened to perceptions of gays and gay rights when AIDS started in America in the early 1980s. If society sees a new and deadly STD, one even worse and more contagious than AIDS, come onto the gay scene, all of the current progress will be obliterated. Signs are discouraging. For example, drug-resistant gonorrhea is starting to spread particularly among gay males. Infections of almost all STDs are on the rise with respect to gay males and females who engage in anal sex. It is all quite reminiscient of the late 1970s, so I will not be the least bit surprised if another killer STD is around the corner, the next 5-10 years, if current trends continue.

The worst part: A lot of pain and suffering could be avoided if everybody properly used condoms all of the time.

Wouldn't it be in society's best interest then to have an institution that reduces promiscuity and promotes gay monogamy? Wouldn't the best way to reduce this hypothetical disease be to promote stable, long-term relationships amongst all couples?

On second thought, don't answer that. I wouldn't want rational thought get in the way of your paranoid delusions that gays are going to inflict a great plague of death and suffering on the nation because that's the way Jesus wants it.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2013, 07:35:38 PM »
« Edited: March 03, 2013, 07:37:58 PM by Politico »

I remember what happened to perceptions of gays and gay rights when AIDS started in America in the early 1980s. If society sees a new and deadly STD, one even worse and more contagious than AIDS, come onto the gay scene, all of the current progress will be obliterated. Signs are discouraging. For example, drug-resistant gonorrhea is starting to spread particularly among gay males. Infections of almost all STDs are on the rise with respect to gay males and females who engage in anal sex. It is all quite reminiscient of the late 1970s, so I will not be the least bit surprised if another killer STD is around the corner, the next 5-10 years, if current trends continue.

The worst part: A lot of pain and suffering could be avoided if everybody properly used condoms all of the time.

Wouldn't it be in society's best interest then to have an institution that reduces promiscuity and promotes gay monogamy? Wouldn't the best way to reduce this hypothetical disease be to promote stable, long-term relationships amongst all couples?

On second thought, don't answer that. I wouldn't want rational thought get in the way of your paranoid delusions that gays are going to inflict a great plague of death and suffering on the nation because that's the way Jesus wants it.

I support gay marriage for exactly the reasons you have outlined, and because it is only fair to provide equal rights to everybody regardless of who they love. I am just saying that support for gay rights and the current positive perception of gays can easily turn upside down in a hurry if we see a sequel to the early '80s AIDS epidemic. Nobody imagined AIDS in the late 1970s and look at what happened. Now many people are repeating the same behavior we saw in the late 1970s. We know what lots of risky behavior can lead to now, so we should not be surprised when another deadly STD comes onto the scene.

Lesbians have nothing to worry about, of course.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,837
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: March 09, 2013, 08:45:26 AM »

This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the gay community accept that some places just will not allow them to marry based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.

Doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, he's on the winning side.

No he's not on the winning side. Eternity will judge this one vastly differently than He did racial civil rights.

Not 'Eternity' (whatever that is), history, and all signs point to gay rights being here to stay. Provide any shred of evidence suggesting a reversal from the present course.

I remember what happened to perceptions of gays and gay rights when AIDS started in America in the early 1980s. If society sees a new and deadly STD, one even worse and more contagious than AIDS, come onto the gay scene, all of the current progress will be obliterated. Signs are discouraging. For example, drug-resistant gonorrhea is starting to spread particularly among gay males. Infections of almost all STDs are on the rise with respect to gay males and females who engage in anal sex. It is all quite reminiscient of the late 1970s, so I will not be the least bit surprised if another killer STD is around the corner, the next 5-10 years, if current trends continue.

The worst part: A lot of pain and suffering could be avoided if everybody properly used condoms all of the time.

Much of the spread of STDs relates to intravenous drug use. Druggies will do anything to get the money for a fix. Next!
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: March 10, 2013, 05:35:23 PM »

This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the gay community accept that some places just will not allow them to marry based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.

Doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, he's on the winning side.

No he's not on the winning side. Eternity will judge this one vastly differently than He did racial civil rights.

Not 'Eternity' (whatever that is), history, and all signs point to gay rights being here to stay. Provide any shred of evidence suggesting a reversal from the present course.

I remember what happened to perceptions of gays and gay rights when AIDS started in America in the early 1980s. If society sees a new and deadly STD, one even worse and more contagious than AIDS, come onto the gay scene, all of the current progress will be obliterated. Signs are discouraging. For example, drug-resistant gonorrhea is starting to spread particularly among gay males. Infections of almost all STDs are on the rise with respect to gay males and females who engage in anal sex. It is all quite reminiscient of the late 1970s, so I will not be the least bit surprised if another killer STD is around the corner, the next 5-10 years, if current trends continue.

The worst part: A lot of pain and suffering could be avoided if everybody properly used condoms all of the time.

Much of the spread of STDs relates to intravenous drug use [anal sex]. Druggies will do anything to get the money for a fix. Next!

Fixed.

Your message is not only untrue, but promotes the denial of the problem and therefore spreads pain and suffering.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: March 14, 2013, 08:01:11 AM »

I just can't wait for the inevitable SCOTUS decision that applies the Equal Protection Clause to gay couples and we can be done this debate for good. 
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: March 16, 2013, 03:28:21 PM »

This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the gay community accept that some places just will not allow them to marry based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.

Doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, he's on the winning side.

No he's not on the winning side. Eternity will judge this one vastly differently than He did racial civil rights.

I'm bisexual. I thought God was loving, and caring? I mean I'm only half broken, won't he give me a chance? Sad


I wouldve supported King and the Civil Rights folks. King would side with me today on this if he were still with us.

I honestly don't care what Martin Luther King, Jr. would have, or did think of gay marriage. And to be honest, the Civil Rights Movement - Gay Rights Movement comparison is getting a little old, and it isn't a great analogy.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: March 16, 2013, 08:45:06 PM »

I just can't wait for the inevitable SCOTUS decision that applies the Equal Protection Clause to gay couples and we can be done this debate for good. 

Even if it does that, it won't end the debate only shift the focus.  As per well established precedent, the Equal Protection Clause only applies to governmental action, so things such as businesses being required to offer their services to both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages will still require legislative action.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 13 queries.