Welcome to the 13th century, NC!

[granfire]

And thats your opinion. In this case more NC voters dont share your opinion and thats their opinion.

True.
But replace gay with black and see what happens. Or white or martian....

Some things are just not left to the public, for the public as a whole does not get the picture...Like people not wanting o fund schools, because they have no kids.


The list is endless, really.

 

[ballen0351]

Yes the govt knows best for us all why vote at all lets just turn our lives over to the govt it will be so much better for us all.



Its the price you pay when people are allowed to vote for themselves you take the good with the bad.

True.
But replace gay with black and see what happens. Or white or martian....

Some things are just not left to the public, for the public as a whole does not get the picture...Like people not wanting o fund schools, because they have no kids.


The list is endless, really.

 

[granfire]

Yes the govt knows best for us all why vote at all lets just turn our lives over to the govt it will be so much better for us all.



Its the price you pay when people are allowed to vote for themselves you take the good with the bad.

well, no.

That's why the founding fathers put safeguards in place.

 

[ballen0351]

well, no.

That's why the founding fathers put safeguards in place.

And every single safeguard can be changed at anytime. We could outlaw freedom of speech or press tomorrow if we had enough votes. The constitution can be changed anytime we want if you get enough people to vote.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm not a Christian.
This isn't a Christian nation.
We're a Republic, not a Theocracy.

Let the Christians deal with themselves, and let the rest of us seek happiness.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

And every single safeguard can be changed at anytime. We could outlaw freedom of speech or press tomorrow if we had enough votes. The constitution can be changed anytime we want if you get enough people to vote.

Will of the People has little to do with amending the Constitution.

Article V of the Constitution outlines how to amend (modify) the document. It consists of two steps: proposal and ratification.

1. Propose An Amendment
Either Congress or the States can propose an amendment ot the Constitution.

• Both Houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
• Two-thirds of the State legislatures must call on Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention.

2. Ratify An Admendment
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition (21st Amendment).

Is there a timeline for ratification? The US Supreme Court has held that ratification must happen within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Since the 18th Amendment, Congress has set a term of seven years for ratification.

Only 33 amendments have received a two-thirds vote from both Houses of Congress. Of those, only 27 have been ratified by the States. Perhaps the most visible failure is the Equal Rights Amendment.


Article V

• The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm

 

[ballen0351]

The will of the people have everything to do with changing the constitution. Who do you think elects both houses of congress. Tje people. If you get enough people that want something changed it can happen. If you got enough people that no longer wanted the 2nd amendmemt they could change it. If you got enough people that want single payer health carr they could change the constitution. If you gpt enough people that wanted to return to segregation and outlaw interracial marriage you could. Thats the point when you have a country where everyone gets a vote you get great results and not so great results. Theres no education requirement to vote so even people that decide im going to vote yes no yes no yes no with out even reading the ballot that vote no matter how stupid counts. You get enough well you win

 

[ballen0351]

I'm not a Christian.
This isn't a Christian nation.
We're a Republic, not a Theocracy.

Let the Christians deal with themselves, and let the rest of us seek happiness.

So EVERYONE that voted the ban was a christian?

 

[granfire]

And every single safeguard can be changed at anytime. We could outlaw freedom of speech or press tomorrow if we had enough votes. The constitution can be changed anytime we want if you get enough people to vote.

well, it takes too many people to agree on it.

Yes, it could in theory be changed.

In reality not much will be done in our lifetime.

That is in a nutshell why the US constitution is such a great work of art.

It is not the best constitution. Nor the oldest.

But it is simply the best old one, still working as the authors had intended, and in 200 years not many changes were undertaken. Simply genius!

 

[oftheherd1]

I'm not a Christian.

True if you say so.

This isn't a Christian nation.

We are still sometimes considered so. But you are correct. I think that sad.

We're a Republic, not a Theocracy.

For sure. And I wouldn't want it any other way. We have in general found a way to keep our religion and civil government separate. Some nations have a problem understanding that.

Let the Christians deal with themselves, and let the rest of us seek happiness.

That wasn't nice of you Bob. Why do you think christians don't seek, nor by implication, have the ability to find, happiness?

And one thing I don't understand, is why those of you who are so sure it is OK to not have values and laws to support them, don't advocate for total anarchy? And maybe that isn't nice either. But we always draw lines on values and laws that will support them. We just don't always agree on where those lines should be drawn. That's OK too. We should not be a nation of sheep. I have expressed my views, and you and others, your views. Great! But I wonder if there aren't more who think my view (not because it is mine) is how they also believe, but just don't want the roasting going on here now?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

True if you say so

....

That wasn't nice of you Bob. Why do you think christians don't seek, nor by implication, have the ability to find, happiness?

And one thing I don't understand, is why those of you who are so sure it is OK to not have values and laws to support them, don't advocate for total anarchy? And maybe that isn't nice either. But we always draw lines on values and laws that will support them. We just don't always agree on where those lines should be drawn. That's OK too. We should not be a nation of sheep. I have expressed my views, and you and others, your views. Great! But I wonder if there aren't more who think my view (not because it is mine) is how they also believe, but just don't want the roasting going on here now?

First part, I'm not. There's a thread around here somewhere that I went into more detail on where I fall as it were.

Last part, wasn't what I meant. My point was if you're a Christian, follow Christian policy, but let those of us who aren't follow our own. Which means if my faith is fine with same-sex marriage, then let us recognize them, and give them the same rights as -everyone else who is married-.

That's all.

As to happiness...I could say 'married misery' too.

As to views, believe what you want, how you want. But let me do the same.

(sorry if I'm not being clear, had little sleep dealing with some idiot putting a rock through my front window last night.)

 

[MSTCNC]

I'm not a Christian.
This isn't a Christian nation.
We're a Republic, not a Theocracy.

Let the Christians deal with themselves, and let the rest of us seek happiness.

Thank you, Bob...

 

[ballen0351]

well, it takes too many people to agree on it.

And with as deeply divided the nation is becoming i see a much greater chance of some wtates saying screw you washington DC and leaving the union before a mass change in the constitution my only point was peopke xan change the safeguards if they choose to nothing is forever

Yes, it could in theory be changed.

In reality not much will be done in our lifetime.

That is in a nutshell why the US constitution is such a great work of art.

It is not the best constitution. Nor the oldest.

But it is simply the best old one, still working as the authors had intended, and in 200 years not many changes were undertaken. Simply genius!

The problem comes when the govt finds its loopholes to get around it or just flat out refuses to follow it

 

[ballen0351]

Bob all thats fine and dandy but you seem to imply a person should not vote their beliefs because you disagree with them. If i believe gay marriage is wrong should i not vote that way? I cant help it more people believe the same way i do then believe the way you do.

 

[granfire]

And with as deeply divided the nation is becoming i see a much greater chance of some wtates saying screw you washington DC and leaving the union before a mass change in the constitution my only point was peopke xan change the safeguards if they choose to nothing is forever

The problem comes when the govt finds its loopholes to get around it or just flat out refuses to follow it

No, nothing is forever, even great empires eventually fall.

However, the government not following the guidelines only works until they are challenged.
Pass a numbskull law that affects nobody, it won't cause ripples. Eventually somebody will come along and test the waters, because that's what some people do.

Then the big guys will tell DC that sadly that won't do and the 'representatives' will scramble to fix it.

it ain't perfect, but the best thing so far.

 

[granfire]

Bob all thats fine and dandy but you seem to imply a person should not vote their beliefs because you disagree with them. If i believe gay marriage is wrong should i not vote that way? I cant help it more people believe the same way i do then believe the way you do.

If people minded more teir own business instead of everybody elses....
Especially in matters that happen behind close doors between consenting adults...
There is a mild latent perversion going on in that obsession with same sex relationships.

 

[Steve]

If you believe it's wrong, ballen, I'd recommend not marrying a guy.

I seriously don't understand why I'm the only one who seems alarmed at the idea of ratifying enforced discrimination. This is no different than passing a law banning anyone who is clinically obese from eating in restaurants. Or barring white people from being eligible for food stamps. We are no longer talking about protected or unprotected categories. We move into categories that are singled out for Government sanctioned discrimination. That's not good, folks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Nomad]

Marriage, at it's root, is a civil contract that gives first precedence in all legal matters to the person's spouse. You cannot get married in a church without having a marriage contract that meets state law... the religious ceremony is just that, a ceremony. If you or your spouse contracts a terrible illness, this document says you get to make choices that they may not be able to regarding their care. If one dies, the other automatically gets any insurance benefits (unless the policy explicitly states someone else as the beneficiary) and inherits the spouse's possessions in the absence of a more explicit will.

As pointed out, a marriage performed in one state is valid in all others, and internationally as well.

Non-spouses that meet certain criteria are granted some of the same rights as spouses, depending on the state laws. By definition, rights granted by these less-formalized arrangements don't necessarily transfer between states or internationally.

I don't understand how you tell a gay couple that's been together for 20 years that they don't qualify for equal rights and protection under the law, and that their relationship is somehow less valid than Kim Kardashian's 72 day marriage.

 

[Jenna]

I don't understand how you tell a gay couple that's been together for 20 years that they don't qualify for equal rights and protection under the law, and that their relationship is somehow less valid than Kim Kardashian's 72 day marriage.

Most concise and astute comment so far! BIG +1

 

[ballen0351]

If you believe it's wrong, ballen, I'd recommend not marrying a guy.

I dont disagree with you. Ive alreay said several times i dont think you should need govt permission to get married. I woukd never fight to bring it up for a vote. But if it was on the ballot should you not vote your beliefs?



I dont think it should have ever been voted on if i want to marry my jeep its none of your concern
But we let the govt in our relationships and now were stuck