J
jp54321
Guest
What is the morality of putting this out to a vote? Many politicians say it should be up to states to decide this since federal government should not get involved in issues like this.
- Status
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
If you’re talking about the USA, that is the absolute raw Constitutional solution under the 10th Amendment.
As far as morality goes, I support states rights on the issue because I see it right now as probably the best way to limit evil. I think it also provides more of a basis for comparison that would be very hard to ignore. Also, it encourages more grassroots support vs. top-down government because people pay much more attention to what happens at the state level.
However, because gay “marriage” activists have used the courts to achieve their ends, I would support a top-down government approach to relinquish the top-down government short-cut they used.
As far as I know, the Church hasn’t directly commented on marriage being a state’s right issue, although a Catholic living in a state where it’s on the ballot would need to oppose any changes to traditional marriage.
E
edwest2
Guest
The morality is voting against it which I did when it was on the ballot in my state. It was voted down twice in California, so an end run was done around the people through the Supreme Court. It’s a lot easier to convince a handful of people than millions of Americans.
Ed
K
kozlosap
Guest
Having different laws in 50 states that have to do with hurman rights, will not work. If we were to have different laws then it would be legal in Mississippi or North Carolina to intentionally discriminate against LGBT citizens, but not in most others of the State’s of Northern Agression…Oh wait!!!
A
anon67074017
Guest
The states’ rights argument is the best argument currently to combat same-sex marriage. I doubt that the whole country will consent to it being illegal.
R
Rau
Guest
This does not sound like a moral question - the means by which the society decides its rules ought to be in conformance with the rules by which the society is constituted.
R
Rau
Guest
There are routinely differences in what constitutes lawful behaviour between States in a country. What matters are able to be regulated on a State basis vs nationally is normally addressed in constitutions or agreed between the levels of Government.Having different laws in 50 states that have to do with hurman rights, will not work. If we were to have different laws then it would be legal in Mississippi or North Carolina to intentionally discriminate against LGBT citizens, but not in most others of the State’s of Northern Agression…Oh wait!!!
Remember that “discrimination” is not itself wrong. Unjust discrimination is wrong. I find it proper for the State to discriminate in determining the scenarios of marriage it will support, and those it will not. There are reasonable bases to discriminate and unreasonable.
It’s a separate matter as to what jurisdictions governs these rules. One would imagine that broader is better, but that is ultimate a matter for the rules by which the society constitutes itself at state and national levels.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Same sex marriage was last voted down with Proposition 8 by 52.47% to 47.53%. But it was still a fairly close vote and that was almost 8 years ago in 2008. If this issue was on the ballot now, same sex marriage would win in a popular vote in California. So even without court intervention, it would have been just a matter of time before same-sex marriage would have been approved by popular vote, especially because California has been getting increasingly more liberal. California has not elected any GOP candidates to a statewide office since 2006.
E
edwest2
Guest
The level of propaganda was amazing. Every time a vote was lost, LGBT supporters blamed a lack of money. Finally, they had to go door to door. Gay marriage is a legal fiction.
Ed
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Do you see something wrong with citizens in a democracy going door to door to try and persuade other fellow citizens to vote for a cause or a candidate that is important to them?
E
edwest2
Guest
What I see wrong is putting it to a vote and the majority of the citizens say no. Your group doesn’t accept that, so you do an end run. I’ll convince the President of the United States, judges and politicians, as in this absurdist Bathroom Bill craziness - I’ll lobby the Supreme Court. Then, I’ll keep the pressure on citizens by using proven Military Psychological Warfare tactics. Wear the enemy down. Make no doubt about it, those opposed are immediately labeled, and even sued.
Important does not equal right or good in every case.
Ed
M
mikekle
Guest
Prop 8 in CA not so long ago, was a prime example of that…even though the people spoke, the Govt shut them down and changed it.
If that can happen with one issue, it can surely happen in others too, but thats getting into tyranny territory.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
What do you think courts are for? If the popular vote was all that counted, they would have continued in many southern states to have schools, drinking fountains, restaurants and bathrooms segregated by race. Do you think that’s proper just because it was based on the popular vote in those states?
E
edwest2
Guest
On a Catholic forum, I’ll just repeat what’s been said here: gay marriage is impossible. Sure, laws can be passed for some things and overturned.
The race comparison is invalid and it’s not just a Catholic thing.
jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3
Ed
R
Rau
Guest
All rule setting methods, including popular votes, have limits. For example they can’t breach a procedural rule or conflict with the constitution unless the vote is cast in that context. But generally speaking, the voice of the people should prevail over the view of their representatives.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Should the public vote advocate punishing Catholicism and behaviour such as wearing crucifixes or attending mass, would you still query the role of the courts or would you suddenly see the benefit of constitutional law? :ehh:
Brute force majority voting needs limiters, IMO. Feel free to disagree, but (especially given the current demographics in the western world) take a good hard look at the likely consequences.
R
Rau
Guest
Generally such limits derive from previously established rules endorsed by the people (directly, or indirectly). It is highly debatable that there is any proper such basis for a parliament or a court to decide that “marriage” means something it previously didn’t, if at the same time, the people disagree. In the US, the court decided that there was a constitutional basis to broaden the meaning of marriage (in effect). In other jurisdictions, parliaments are considering a law change. The latter would just be wrong if the people disagree. The former depends on the Constitution - and a fair-minded attempt to understand what its provisions mean, and whether they ought properly control the subject under consideration (given evidently they don’t do so explicitly).
I imagine that the popular vote in the US would favour SSM, though I’ve not seen any broad-based polling on the subject.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Like the constitution?
If you (the people) have all formally agreed to a moral principle such as not forcing your subjective (as opposed to objective) beliefs on others, and enshrined that in law, is it right for the courts to point out and enforce the consequences of such a principle?
But it did. Especially in the USA given the native ‘two spirit’ beliefs and traditions.
If that were the case, the courts would not be able to enforce their judgement. You are only up in arms because you cannot force your views on us. ( you and us in the most general sense)
Aaand…? You think you know better? Should your view be taken over mine (were I a US citizen)? Or would you prefer to have no judicial oversight of the democratic process? Even if liberals outnumbered Catholics?
Umm… So democracy would favour the judicial decision, but you still want that decision overturned? Surely not?:ehh:
R
Rau
Guest
Taffy - what are you on about?
I’ve expressed an opinion - principally on a matter of civics, and secondarily on the soundness (as I see it) of a court’s judgement - not launched a campaign to “overturn” anything. My fundamental view is that the laws of the land should be in accordance with the will of the people. And all the people get to express their view on what the law should be and to argue their case.
K
kozlosap
Guest
So, because it is against some American’s private religious beliefs, we need to revisit all hot button social issues that have been ajudicated over the past 70 years? Just imagine the racist Jim Crow laws that would be reinstated in states such as Mississippi and Tennessee. LGBTQ issues would be far down the list in the beginning. If this election cycle has proven me wrong, it’s with my perception that racism was on its way down the toilet. How sad.Taffy - what are you on about?
My fundamental view is that the laws of the land should be in accordance with the will of the people. And all the people get to express their view on what the law should be and to argue their case.
- Status