Friday, September 28, 2012 5:02:16 AM
@madest: Now, you'll see that we`ve strayed from out original discussion about states rights. We WERE NOT discussing the validity or legality of marriage laws. We were only discussing the best model for creating and monitoring those laws.
This must be done to ensure that we stay on topic. Afterall, that is what we want, correct?
Friday, September 28, 2012 4:59:13 AM
@madest: Now I agree that we aren't living up to the Constitution, as you say. Moreso, the Founding Fathers were wise enough to understand that no governmental body is infallible. Therefore, they thought it would be best to have each state govern themselves and to use the federal government to ensure the states followed those rules.
Surely you understand that I am not a proponent of anti-gay marriage laws. It is one of the greatest sins in government to identify groups and to create laws specific to only some groups. All laws created by a governing body should apply equally and without prejudice to the citizens governed by that body.
Unfortunately, we have been shown multiple times that we simply cannot trust a governing body to protect those rights. Therefore, the best answer is the federalist (states rights) model. Faults will occur in any system, but this one allows for correction.
Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:32:30 AM
No. The case proves that religious beliefs are foundations for some of our laws. Can't compare incest to homosexuality. Incest may involve consenting adults but nobody is being busted for marrying their cousin. In fact I doubt they even check relations when filing for a marriage certificate. People who are attracted to a relative aren`t driven by a sexual desire to only have sex with relatives, yet the same can`t be said of homosexuals. Not to mention homosexual sex won`t produce inbred babies so your comparison is an insult to the gay community. My point is if we lived up to the constitution we would never even have this discussion. What I find astounding is all the votes on gay marriage across the country are unconstitutional and nobody is pointing that out. There`s no provision in the constitution allowing for the majority to vote on the rights of a minority. The constitution is specific on equality.