Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

State by state gay marriage? State by state abortion restrictions? State by state gun laws?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 11:52 AM
Original message
State by state gay marriage? State by state abortion restrictions? State by state gun laws?
We need FEDERAL laws.

It's ridiculous that you can go to Massachusetts and get married but to California and not be married. It's ridiculous that you can get a safe and legal abortion in California but that you can't find a clinic in North Dakota. It's insane that the ammo you buy is monitored in Los Angeles but that you can carry a weapon openly, right outside a building where the President is speaking, in Arizona.

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Our President is a coward, bigot, or both.
It starts at the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. So, choose your state. And stay there. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. Any states that protect gay rights, AND protect gun rights? I might move there. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Iowa?
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Maybe. It's worth looking into.
I think that area of the country "tends" to be kind of strange. Kansas had lots of racism, lots of bible thumpers, and lots of people who thought common folks were too dangerous to carry guns.
Iowa certainly sounds different, though I've always lumped those big flat states into the same pile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Ok, their gun rights do look very good.
And the gay marriage thing in Iowa speaks for itself. It really does sound like a fabulous,,um,,I mean,, it sounds like a great place.
I really will consider moving.
Gay rights won't have any effect on me directly. But a culture that permits gay marriage has to be more in tune with my opinions than Virginia is.
Sounds awsome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Vermont. Vermont has the laxest gun laws in the country
and was the first state to enact marriage equality through the legislature as well as the only one to override the governor's veto of marriage equality. I can guarantee that won't happen anywhere else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Oh, hell, you're right. Better climate too! What's not to like? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. vermont
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. Ya shouldn't have to play state-to-state musical chairs to have your human rights protected.
Or your constitutional rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. WA state nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
excess_3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
5. I am pro-(state)choice
choose what you like
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. Oh, really? With regard to gay rights in particular? Or with regard to all human rights? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think we have a good balance of state choice vs. federal authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. So you're ok with the definition of marriage varying by state.
Hmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
11. Some things should be left up to the states. Not marriage equality
but for sure gun regulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. So...
States should be able to trump one right but not another?

Especially one that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

I don't think so... at least not as far as the 2nd amendment is concerned.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. Gay marriage should be legal in all states due to the Full Faith and Credit clause.
You get married and are straight. You move to another state, that state recognizes your marriage as valid. This should apply to gay marriage too, and eventually, with enough court decisions, it will.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
32. And it would be if only Clinton had stood up to DOMA
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
16. Where I live you can buy and drink a beer in one county
but legally NOT do so 3 miles down the road in another county.
But didja ever notice cigarettes were/are legal in all the states and counties?
Smoking them, on the other hand, is restricted in some states, like Ca.
I don't drink or smoke but that is indeed insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. Imagine the poor tourists
They come to California and can buy hard liquor in the supermarket. Then they go to another state (like Virginia or Pennsylvania) where the state controls the sale of hard liquor in special stores that close early. Then they go to places that have completely dry towns (like the one you mention.)

Or they attend college in California where the gun laws are pretty strict. Then they visit friends at U of Arizona and watch the locals openly carrying every manner of gun. It's got to be confusing. And frightening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TxRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
17. I don't see it as rediculous at all.
The federal government was set up with limited powers for good reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. So why don't we have different states that let you drive on different sides of the road?
The East Coast could be set up like Britain where everyone drives on the left, for example. That makes more sense than having marriage differ from state to state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. states could allow driving on either side of the road
the feds would just deny them federal highways funds, though

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TxRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Why have states with different laws?
Well a landlocked state may want different oil drilling laws than one with a 1000 mile coast.

One that derives more income from coastal tourism might want different laws than one which doesn't in regards to offshore wind farms.

A state on the great lakes might want different water regulations than a desert state like Nevada.

A small state that is mostly urban, might want different highway laws than a state with thousands of miles of open country.

Move on to agriculture, ranching, aviation, taxes, education, health care, etc. etc. Different states have different economies, different cultures, different needs, different strengths, different weaknesses.

Having 50 models means we get to see results of 50 experiments and pick and choose what works best from watching the others.

I could go on for pages and pages...

Go over to Europe and tell every state in the euro union they should all adopt identical laws, identical systems, identical taxes between them all, I doubt you'll get very far.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. That argument would have kept Jim Crow intact
And that's the problem with civil rights being subject to states' rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TxRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. And why we will always argue what should be under federal power.
And we should restrict it to what absolutely has to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. Recommended.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
20. EXACTLY!!
mob rule to dictate civil rights issues is whats going on....WE NEED FEDERAL LAWS...!

KNR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
28. Same thing on the larger stage
It's the same reason why the world can't agree on anything. Regional governments acting in their own interests.

Home vs Street. Street vs. Neighborhood. State vs. Country. Region vs. Globe. It's really just an inefficient game of tug of war. You know one side will win eventually, you just don't know which one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
31. Oh, c'mon! State by state slavery laws worked just fine!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
33. You might not like the Federal laws you'd get. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 15th 2019, 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC