I tend to lean to the right

[nick1985]

yet I cannot understand many other rightie's stance on marriage/abortion.

I feel that the Constitution doesn't deal with civil issues such as these, so these issues should be up to the states. If a state wants to ban abortion and only allow for man/woman marriages, then thats great. If a state wants to allow abortion and allow for homosexual marriages, them thats fantastic as well, I love seeing the 10th amendment being used.

/shrug

 

[Carmen813]

You know what's fun? Reading about the history of marriage licenses. They've almost always been used by governments to restrict individual rights.

 

[thraashman]

yet I cannot understand many other rightie's stance on marriage/abortion.

I feel that the Constitution doesn't deal with civil issues such as these, so these issues should be up to the states. If a state wants to ban abortion and only allow for man/woman marriages, then thats great. If a state wants to allow abortion and allow for homosexual marriages, them thats fantastic as well, I love seeing the 10th amendment being used.

/shrug

So do you also think that if a state wants to allow slavery of a specific race that that falls under states rights as well?

 

[rudder]

Well you have fiscal conservatism, religious conservatism, Neo conservatives, cultural conservatives, etc. People in congress with an R beside their name have to pander to many different groups in order to stay in power. Hence you will have politicians with varying degrees of lean.

As for the public... well we only have two major political parties. In some cases it is all or nothing which is unfortunate.

 

[rudder]

So do you also think that if a state wants to allow slavery of a specific race that that falls under states rights as well?

That involves subjugating another person against their will. we are not talking about making two guys get married if they do not want to.

The abortion thing... I won't touch.

 

[nick1985]

So do you also think that if a state wants to allow slavery of a specific race that that falls under states rights as well?

I'd suggest hitting up the 13th amendment. You also may need to brush up on the Supremacy Clause (based off your post)

Thanks

 

[zsdersw]

yet I cannot understand many other rightie's stance on marriage/abortion.

I feel that the Constitution doesn't deal with civil issues such as these, so these issues should be up to the states. If a state wants to ban abortion and only allow for man/woman marriages, then thats great. If a state wants to allow abortion and allow for homosexual marriages, them thats fantastic as well, I love seeing the 10th amendment being used.

/shrug

The only problem with this is that while the states like to set their own rules from time to time and give a big middle finger to the feds, they also come crying and whining to the feds when a neighboring state offers something they banned, or makes something cheaper/more accessible, and want the feds to take action.

 

[zsdersw]

If a state that outlawed abortion neighbored a state in which it's legal, how much do you wanna bet the state that outlawed it would whine to the feds that women are going into the other state to have the abortion?

 

[nick1985]

The only problem with this is that while the states like to set their own rules from time to time and give a big middle finger to the feds, they also come crying and whining to the feds when a neighboring state offers something they banned, or makes something cheaper/more accessible, and want the feds to take action.

If a state offers something another state banned, then boohoo for that state. They should re-think their policy if they feel its hurting them. Simple as that. As far a cheaper/more accessible, neither of the 2 civil issues I brought up in the OP have anything to do with being cheaper. My point is there should be no fed action on either. They dont have the constitutional power to do either, these are states rights issues (10th amendment).

 

[nick1985]

If a state that outlawed abortion neighbored a state in which it's legal, how much do you wanna bet the state that outlawed it would whine to the feds that women are going into the other state to have the abortion?

Then it is what it is. Congress doesnt have an enumerated power to deal with civil issues such as this. Democracy isnt perfect.

 

[zsdersw]

If a state offers something another state banned, then boohoo for that state. They should re-think their policy if they feel its hurting them. Simple as that.

Yup.. good luck with that, though.

As far a cheaper/more accessible, neither of the 2 civil issues I brought up in the OP have anything to do with being cheaper.

Sure it could. Fines/punishments for abortion and fees for marriage could be significantly different between states.

 

[McWatt]

If you cross state lines to pay for one of these services, it would traditionally then be subject to the interstate commerce clause and the feds would have authority.

Federalism is such a boring subject. I never understood the people who could get worked up about it.

 

[nick1985]

Yup.. good luck with that, though.



Sure it could. Fines/punishments for abortion and fees for marriage could be significantly different between states.

I dont know what we are arguing here(arguing for the sake of arguing?). State's rights. Feds should butt out.

 

[daishi5]

Yup.. good luck with that, though.

Sure it could. Fines/punishments for abortion and fees for marriage could be significantly different between states.

I think I see the problem here. He believes states should have the right to govern themselves, and you are wondering how that is going to work when two states have different rules and try to have a third party force the second party to do what they want. The answer to all your questions is in his premise of states rights. The state has the right to govern itself in these matters. If it is truly a right for a state to govern itself, neither the second state, nor the fed have the capability of forcing the state to do anything. Therefore, no state would ever have the right to use the federal government to change another states behavior unless that behavior violated the constitution.

 

[thraashman]

That involves subjugating another person against their will. we are not talking about making two guys get married if they do not want to.

The abortion thing... I won't touch.

Not allowing a woman to do with her body what she deems necessary and proper is a form of subjugating her against her will. Not allowing someone to have the protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment is in itself violating that amendment.

 

[Moonbeam]

We are a nation now, and states are a relic of the past, a relic we will preserve in name. But the fact is that the better California gets the more people screwed over by donkeys elsewhere come here. A camel can't offer free rides or else it will be crushed by the weight of thousands. The backward imbecility of the defeated and now self hating South destroys everyone. The nation can't prosper with an infected colon and so all the healthier states have to send antibodies to the feds to stomp our the infection.

There is nothing a contagion carrier hates and fears more than quarantine. Such is the nature of an infected asshole that he's reluctant to shit, but if you don't shit there'll be no pudding.

 

[nick1985]

Not allowing a woman to do with her body what she deems necessary and proper is a form of subjugating her against her will. Not allowing someone to have the protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment is in itself violating that amendment.

14th amendment gives slaves citizenship...

Perhaps my memory is fuzzy

 

[zsdersw]

I think I see the problem here. He believes states should have the right to govern themselves, and you are wondering how that is going to work when two states have different rules and try to have a third party force the second party to do what they want. The answer to all your questions is in his premise of states rights. The state has the right to govern itself in these matters. If it is truly a right for a state to govern itself, neither the second state, nor the fed have the capability of forcing the state to do anything. Therefore, no state would ever have the right to use the federal government to change another states behavior unless that behavior violated the constitution.

Yeah, I understand all of that.. I just have a hard time believing it's realistic, and that both the fed and other states won't find some way to interfere.

 

[nick1985]

We are a nation now, and states are a relic of the past, a relic we will preserve in name.

I guess thats the difference between you and I. I still believe in the Constitution.

 

[Atreus21]

yet I cannot understand many other rightie's stance on marriage/abortion.

I feel that the Constitution doesn't deal with civil issues such as these, so these issues should be up to the states. If a state wants to ban abortion and only allow for man/woman marriages, then thats great. If a state wants to allow abortion and allow for homosexual marriages, them thats fantastic as well, I love seeing the 10th amendment being used.

/shrug

On abortion: No problem. Leave it up to the states. That's why Roe v. Wade should be repealed.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, but if it were enacted by state legislatures, I'd shut up and accept it. For me, democracy trumps all. Oligarchy should not.

 

[nonlnear]

We are a nation now, and states are a relic of the past, a relic we will preserve in name.

I guess thats the difference between you and I. I still believe in the Constitution.

The Constitution is a relic of the past, a relic we will preserve in name.
/Moonbeam

 

[nick1985]

I'm opposed to gay marriage.

I'm not the biggest fan of it either, but I still see it as a states rights issue. Feds need to butt out of this one.

 

[Elfear]

Not allowing a woman to do with her body what she deems necessary and proper is a form of subjugating her against her will. Not allowing someone to have the protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment is in itself violating that amendment.

Come on now. 99% (I just made that up but I'm sure it's pretty close) of those who want an abortion were allowed to do with their bodies what they thought "necessary and proper" before coming to that point. It was completely up to them. There was no subjugation whatsoever. Once that decision was been made however there has to be a proponent for the third party now involved so that they are not subjugated (to death in this case). Not much of a comparison with slavery where the enslaved person never had any choice.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm not the biggest fan of it either, but I still see it as a states rights issue. Feds need to butt out of this one.

I have zero disagreement.

 

[dullard]

yet I cannot understand many other rightie's stance on marriage/abortion.

To me, that is the single biggest problem with the current GOP. There are no strong ties that link them together. Can you give me one valid reason why these must happen?

If you want lower taxes, why must you be pro-life?
If you want pro-life, why must you be pro-NRA?
If you are pro-NRA, why must you be anti-gay rights?
If you are anti-gay rights, why must you be for a smaller federal government?
If you are for a smaller federal government, why must you be pro-military?
If you are pro-military, why must you be in favor of lower taxes?

Yet, the GOP essentially requires any politician to link ALL of the topics or be banished. The GOP gets its power, not from a group of united individuals, but instead from an iron fist controlling disparate groups. That tactic worked in the 1990s, but it cannot and will not work forever. The GOP really must fix that problem, or they will eventually fall apart.

The democrats may be weaker (see the health care debacle with strong majorities in house, senate, and presidency), but the personal freedoms they allow their members will eventually win if the GOP doesn't address their discontinuities.