North Carolina Votes to make gay marriage unconstituational

[Typhoid]

This is why gay marriage shouldn't be left up to the states

I suppose that's part of the problem when you try to found a country on the idea that the states can still hold more power than those that run the states as a whole.


Wait, question though:

[I haven't done prodding, or any fact-things. I just think it has the potential for comedy from the top of my head, but I might be remembering like an idiot.]

So when California legalized pot, didn't your country-wide-government sort of step in and say "Hey, wait a minute. You can't vote on that shit. We're one country, here. Not 50 individual states. Pot is still illegal. You can't just change things like that. We're going to undo that law."

But when North Carolina makes gay marriage unconstitutional it's "Hey, they're allowed to if they vote for it. It's their state. We're 50 individual states, not 1 united country. They're totally allowed to change things like that. We can't undo that law."

I know one is drugs and the other is a dick in a butt - but I still find it humorous.

The rights of a minority group should -never- be voted upon by the majority. It makes no sense, and it isn't fair.

While I definitely agree with the how-fucking-unfair-that-is aspect, there isn't really any other way to hold a vote. You can't just let those people affected vote - because then everything would pass 100% of the time, unless you get some really confused people.
The problem is when those people are bigots or racists - Then they become the majority, which only makes the area more like that - because everyone negatively effected will move away, or die or something.

The ignorance that disgusts me with things like that is there are some who vote for things like that simply because they don't want it taking place in their area. "I don't hate gays/muslims. I just don't want to see fags/a mosque near my children, (because I'm afraid to let my child be influenced by anyone other than me and people like me)."



On the one hand that state is doing exactly what it's allowed to do. Make it's own laws. You're the United States of America. Not the United Country of America. While I agree that it's dumb, retarded and all of that - the only thing that will curb something like this happening is if you throw out the fact states are essentially allowed to be their own little nations in one Union, and form an "actual" country with unified civil rights that can't be overturned by states if the people of that state hold a vote.

I just mean for the sake of "rights" and all that; equality. Marriage is something that should be country-wide, and sexually-ambiguous.

[Vampyr]

The reason things are still done at the state level is because it would be enormously inefficient for the federal government to handle them, like building roads, or schools or managing local law enforcement.

I believe the California pot thing had to do with them creating a state law that violates an existing federal law. There's no existing federal law saying gay marriage is legal. But there should be - that's my point.

The supreme court can still fix this if they decide it's unconstitutional to make gay marriage illegal, which it is.

And my point was that no one should be voting on this. A persons civil rights should not be up for vote. The supreme court needs to up and say states can't do this, and a law should be passed making gay marriage legal nationwide.

States here are not a nation unto themselves. Federal laws and rulings trump state laws and rulings every time. If a state gets out of line, which in my opinion they have, the federal government can knock them back into place. It's happened before, and it can and will happen again.

[Typhoid]

I was agreeing with you.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I was agreeing with you.

I know, I was just explaining that the states aren't quite as powerful as you make them out to be. We still have a very powerful central government. The Federalists won that battle.

[Professor S]

I personally disagree with the decision, but maintain that leaving the decision up to states is the best solution. The larger the institution that decides social policy the bigger the mess it creates. EX. Abortion. 30 years since Roe vs. Wade and it is still a complete political disaster because the people never felt they had a decision on how their society defines the issue. My fear/hope (I am conflicted, obviously) is that this will force a court decision with national consequences. I just hope it doesn't end with an abortion-type of decades long controversy.

In the end, people can vote with their feet and dollars. North Carolina will miss millions of dollars in revenue created by gay tourists and residents and the youth of the state will force eventual social change. An imperfect solution, but I think it would be the most efficient solution.

This sums up my personal opinion:

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I personally disagree with the decision, but maintain that leaving the decision up to states is the best solution. The larger the institution that decides social policy the bigger the mess it creates. EX. Abortion. 30 years since Roe vs. Wade and it is still a complete political disaster because the people never felt they had a decision on how their society defines the issue. My fear/hope (I am conflicted, obviously) is that this will force a court decision with national consequences. I just hope it doesn't end with an abortion-type of decades long controversy.

In the end, people can vote with their feet and dollars. North Carolina will miss millions of dollars in revenue created by gay tourists and residents and the youth of the state will force eventual social change. An imperfect solution, but I think it would be the most efficient solution.

Yeah, I wasn't planning on moving anyway, but now I would definitely never live there. They're going to also lose a lot of talented and skilled people who are either gay or just morally opposed to that decision.

I still think having civil liberties forced on a state by the federal government is better than a state forcibly taking away the rights of people who live there. Those people have virtually no voice and can't fight back.

I'm more afraid of a world where Roe v. Wade didn't happen. Is abortion still a political clusterfuck? Yeah, but it would be regardless. I'm more thankful that the rights of people in conservative states are being protected.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I still think having civil liberties forced on a state by the federal government is better than a state forcibly taking away the rights of people who live there. Those people have virtually no voice and can't fight back.

This is the argument that I personally agree with. Ideally, I just wish everyone would wake up and stop worrying about other people do in their personal lives, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.

I'm more afraid of a world where Roe v. Wade didn't happen. Is abortion still a political clusterfuck? Yeah, but it would be regardless. I'm more thankful that the rights of people in conservative states are being protected.

We have a pretty good idea of what would happen just by measuring public opinion state by state. In most cases abortion would be legal in some form or another, and in those few that ban abortion residents would likely travel to a state that didn't have a ban.

And by the way, conservatives aren't the only ones who attempt to deny rights. Keep in mind, a conservative never voted for firearm regulations and rarely ask for tax increases (denying people the right to a percentage of their property).

Government cannot grant rights, it can only take them away (we are born with rights). This is why I have always had issues with big government whether coming from the left or the social conservative right. The bigger the government the smaller the citizen.