Quote:
Originally Posted by cambaby
Yes it somewhat does fly against my beliefs about what government should and shouldnt dictate in personal life. Let me say this, I dont think marriage should have been a "federal mandate" as it has been. For instance in most states there is a clause that says if someone is in a relationship with you and resides with you for a certain amount of time that you are automatically entered into a common law marriage and I think that is wrong. In the end there is a precedent and we should draw the line somewhere, we cant keep making more and more laws of "inclusion" because there will always be one part of the population that will feel "excluded".
This current fight over gay marriage includes something that a lot of people forget, the rights of states to create and enforce their own laws according to the will of the majority of people in that state. California voters banned gay marriage and unless there is another public vote there should be no court in the land that should go against the will of the majority of voters or believe that their wishes are inconsequential.
I dont care about moral arguments, the power of VOTING should be the utmost freedom protected in this instance.
|
So if the state of California (or any other state for that matter) votes into law that black people have to sit in the back of the bus and use different bathrooms and become second class citizens like they once were, should that be allowed?
While I agree with you that in most cases if people vote for something they should get it. For example, in November California will have a vote to legalize pot in that state. If it passes they should be allowed to have it, but there may be federal challenges made to the law. In this case nobody's civil rights are being stomped on by pot being legalized so that shouldn't happen.
However, the court is also in place to make sure that minorities are not simply run rough-shot over by the masses. Other wise we can vote in slavery again if we want. What if we decide to take women's rights to vote away again? Maybe we can vote that it is okay to openly beat a black person in public if they don't let you cut in line. While some of these are extreme cases, I'm using them to make a point. If the masses decide they want something the stomps on another person's civil rights, the courts are there to step in and help.
Gay marriage shouldn't be an issue. Marriage is a failed institution. If you took a test and got half the questions wrong you would get an F. If half the planes that took off from an airport crashed they would stop all flights. Yet half the people who get married get divorced and people still insist on doing it. Gay marriage is not going to further damage this. Marriage is something that is between two people. What it means to them and how seriously they take the marriage is completely up to them. I know people who have been married over 30 years and have worked hard to stay together through good times and bad and I know people who got divorced after 2 years because the other person drove them crazy.
There should be no civil unions and no common law marriages. If you love someone and decide you want to marry them, you should be able to. If you decide to just live together for 20 years and never get married then break up and go your separate ways, that should be allowed as well and there should be no law stopping it. To me it is simple. You are married, or you are not. No other options. We don't need to keep making laws of "inclusion", instead we can do what real conservatives claim they want. We can shrink the government. Get rid of common law marriage and get rid of civil unions. Actually remove laws from the books and shrink the government's size. Simply have marriage for any two people who want to get married (for that matter if 3,4 or 5 people want to all marry in a polygamists way, they should be allowed to do that as well) The government then plays no role in our bedrooms and private lives which is how it should be.