Any fucking idiots that think civil rights should be decided on a state by state basis

[VMI Dem]

will not get my money or vote again.

[msongs]

1. it's all about imposing religion...states by states is not that relevant nt

[theHandpuppet]

2. What in the world are you talking about?

What a bizarre response to the OP.

[anonymous171]

7. This entire thread is bizarre. So I would say that their response is quite appropriate.

[theHandpuppet]

9. I found nothing bizarre about the OP

And I share the both the sentiments and anger of the author of this thread.

[Dogmudgeon]

17. We have to "hit" religions harder from now on

It's not enough to wait until the next third-grader is buggered in the Sacristy -- we have to be pro-active NOW in bringing down the New Pharisees.

As much as I admire Dawkins and Harris and the late Marilyn Murray O'Hair, we need some serious popular-level agitation aimed at the Separation of Church and Deity. There is a crying need to discredit institutional religion. Once we've de-churched society, can work on the atheism at our leisure.

--d!

[Barack_America]

3. Yeah, WTF is going on in Maine?

[MadMaddie]

8. It's happening in Washington state to

two assholes one divorced 3 or 4 times and another that lives in Oregon got an initative on the ballot trying to deny rights to gays in Washington. We will see what happens with the results tomorrow.

[Tesha]

11. Catholics are imposing their will on an entire state's population.

Sometimes it's the Mormons, sometimes it's the Catholics, frequently
it's fundamentalist Christians.

Religion is a cancer in the body human.

Tesha

[iamthebandfanman]

4. damn right

i keep wondering when federal courts will put an end to this madness.

i thought we decided along time ago that people couldnt vote for descrimination!


it didnt work before, and it wont work now!

[safeinOhio]

18. Isn't there a 14th Amendment?

[bullwinkle428]

5. The assholes here in Iowa are trying to get it on the ballot, after

their hysterical pearl-clutching following the State Supreme Court ruling several months back. The Democratic gov. and the state house & senate Dems. are like "No fucking way!" :woohoo:

[FatDave]

21. And speaking as an Iowan....

....I can assure you the sky has not fallen here. In fact, it's almost as if the change is unnoticeable.

[MattBaggins]

34. But that's unpossible

If two dudes in Iowa get married, the evil joo joo from it will come to NY and destroy my marriage.

[MadMaddie]

6. Yea, our rights are on the ballot in Washington state!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. I agree. How can Constitutional rights not apply to the states? It's ridiculous.

[paulsby]

26. fwiw, any state can recognize additional or more expansive rights than the federal

constitution

NO state can deny rights recognized under the federal constitution

for example, my state has an explicit right to privacy in our constitution

police are more restricted in our state, than many others, because of this right to privacy

as one example, DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional (state constitution) in our state.

the scotus has not ruled that marriage rights between same sex partners are a right recognized in the constitution.

[Unvanguard]

28. Actually, states can deny rights in the federal Constitution.

The main restriction that applies to them is the Fourteenth, and not all the federal rights recognized in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

But this has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, because a general right to marriage has been recognized by the Supreme Court, repeatedly, as a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. There's no reason to believe that there's a secret exception "except for same-sex couples" in there, though how a Supreme Court this conservative might rule is anybody's guess.

[paulsby]

29. no, they can't

no right recognized as applying to the states can be denied by any state.

the 2nd, for example, hasn't been incorporated yet , but i will bet it will be.

the 4th, 6th, 5th, 1st, etc have

the right to marriage HAS been recognized by the scotus. and as i said, the right to same sex marriage has NOT.

[MattBaggins]

35. The right to marraige which includes same sex marriage

YOU seem to think they are separate.

[paulsby]

37. you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension

i said no such thing.

what i said was that the SCOTUS has not recognized any right to same sex marriage.

if and when they did, then it would apply to the states, assuming incorporation.

[Unvanguard]

41. You just turned your statement into a tautology.

Obviously any constitutional restriction "recognized as applying to the states" actually applies to the states. But some are not so recognized. They may in the future, true, but that is not the same thing: all case law could in principle change.

As for your marriage/same-sex marriage distinction, this is as ludicrous as saying "The right to free speech has been recognized by SCOTUS, but not the right to free speech for red-haired people." There is no "right to same-sex marriage." There is a general right to marriage for all people, and there is no reason to believe that it excludes same-sex couples.

[Lex]

12. Just think if states got to vote on civil rights for African Americans.

I bet that would've gone just about as well.

It's f'ed up.

[VMI Dem]

15. That did happen. Looks like some people didn't get the lesson.

[treestar]

39. The courts got around that.

Maybe they can do it in this case too. Just argue marriage is a fundamental right, and states cannot deny fundamental rights.

[951-Riverside]

13. @fucking idiots

You're not going to win anyone over with that nasty attitude.

[KamaAina]

14. What if the question read "Shall black people have the right to vote?"

Then would we see the outrage? :shrug:

[Lilyeye]

23. Here we go......

[VMI Dem]

24. Yep, here we go....

[KamaAina]

30. Where do we go, exactly?

Either people have rights, or they don't. Like the man said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

[Number23]

47. Yep. As always.

[Thothmes]

42. Remember it took a Civil War, a constitutional amendment

and Federal legislation to answer that question.

[Warpy]

16. It starts on a state by state business when they're expanded

just like it started for mixed race couples. When it becomes a legal nightmare because some states refuse to recognize legal marriages from other states, the USSC finally steps in.

I don't like it any better than you do, but the Federal government is reactive, not proactive.

[VMI Dem]

19. Like voting rights and segregation?

Riiight.

[Warpy]

20. Invalid comparisons

but the comparison to interracial marriage is a valid one.

They haven't even changed the rhetoric they used against it.

[VMI Dem]

22. I think its extremely valid. As long as we can't depend on the leader of our party to support

civil rights, we sure as hell can't depend on a right leaning Supreme Court.

[JerseygirlCT]

44. I agree, Warpy

It's frustrating, it's downright maddening... but it's the way it's going to happen.

[paulsby]

25. and that holds for the 2nd amendment too!

hth

[VMI Dem]

27. Kick.

[Joe Fields]

31. It is unconscionable that a civil rights issue is decided by referendum.

[PVnRT]

32. I thought butchered hundreds of thousands of young men some 150 years ago

to settle this whole "states' rights" bullshit.

[Initech]

33. I would go so far as to say that;

Anyone who votes with their church or decides that "equal rights" only means certain groups of people should lose their voting privaleges.

EQUAL RIGHTS MEANS EVERYBODY!!!!!!

[Thothmes]

43. Self Deleted

[Thothmes]

46. self deleted

[joeycola]

36. nor mine.

[Odin2005]

38. Referendums = Tyranny by a majority of BIGOTS.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. Yup

How in the world anyone's civil rights (which come before the law, and are not given by a law) could be up for a vote is beyond me.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. I'm with you all the way.

What does voting for hair splitting bigots get us anyway? Mediocrity and weakness.