I tend to lean to the right

[thraashman]

I'll just shake my head at this post. I know others have already answered it, so I won't beat a dead horse.

My point is that for those who know their history, the states' rights argument was used as a reason to not let the federal government outlaw slavery. And that disagreement is one of the leading factors that caused the civil war.

 

[thraashman]

Gays have equal rights to marry just like the rest of us. A gay man can go out right now and marry a lesbian woman and receive every benefit offered by law.



Would you support a brother and sister having the right to marry? Two brothers? A father and a son? Just curious if you feel there should be any limitations on marriage, or open season for all.

Way to use the same bigoted arguments that were used when states tried to outlaw interracial marriage. Congrats, you're as open-minded as 1960's Mississippi bigots! I bet you're proud.

 

[Red Dawn]

I tend to lean to the right

They have orthopedic shoes that'll correct that:twisted:

 

[PJABBER]

they have orthopedic shoes that'll correct that:twisted:

lol!

 

[CrackRabbit]

How many people in here disagree with the OP's sentiment, but also support the right of states like California to legalize marijuana?

I'm stuck somewhere in the middle, I think that the sates have a right to decide their own laws on subjects.
However there reaches a point where the federal gov. would need to step in and "level the playing field" so to speak so that state to state issues do not get out of hand.

Gun Laws, Civil Rights and Drug Laws are all starting to reach the point where the Fed Gov is going to have to do something where a nation wide homogeny is met.

 

[BoberFett]

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

Yup, they're about as anti-freedom as you get. Why are Republicans who crow about freedom demanding the government stand in the way of "the pursuit of happiness?"

Probably because Republicans aren't really interested in freedom, just their own brand of big government.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm stuck somewhere in the middle, I think that the sates have a right to decide their own laws on subjects.
However there reaches a point where the federal gov. would need to step in and "level the playing field" so to speak so that state to state issues do not get out of hand.

Gun Laws, Civil Rights and Drug Laws are all starting to reach the point where the Fed Gov is going to have to do something where a nation wide homogeny is met.

Why? Why is so important to you that everybody live the same way?

 

[CrackRabbit]

Why? Why is so important to you that everybody live the same way?

It's not so much that everyone live the same way its to make life easier if you were to travel from state to state. The ability of rapid travel that has come about in the past century have made some state laws almost moot in point.

Lets use CCW as an example. You live in state A, this state has laws making it easy to have a CCW. You know that your state has a reciprocation agreement with most other sates that makes your CCW permit good there.
You travel via car to state B, state B has a bunch of gun hating people in its legislative body and unbeknown to you repealed it's reciprocation agreement.

You get pulled over for speeding, and the officer asks if you have any weapons. You volunteer your CCW and are promptly arrested on weapons charges.

An overarching federal law forcing universal CCW reciprocation could of prevented it.

 

[nick1985]

Yup, they're about as anti-freedom as you get. Why are Republicans who crow about freedom demanding the government stand in the way of "the pursuit of happiness?"

Probably because Republicans aren't really interested in freedom, just their own brand of big government.

Hey now, dont lump all Republicans like that.

 

[nick1985]

They have orthopedic shoes that'll correct that:twisted:

OK I laughed

 

[MotF Bane]

It's not so much that everyone live the same way its to make life easier if you were to travel from state to state. The ability of rapid travel that has come about in the past century have made some state laws almost moot in point.

Lets use CCW as an example. You live in state A, this state has laws making it easy to have a CCW. You know that your state has a reciprocation agreement with most other sates that makes your CCW permit good there.
You travel via car to state B, state B has a bunch of gun hating people in its legislative body and unbeknown to you repealed it's reciprocation agreement.

You get pulled over for speeding, and the officer asks if you have any weapons. You volunteer your CCW and are promptly arrested for on weapons charges.

An overarching federal law forcing universal CCW reciprocation could of prevented it.

It's called the Second Amendment, and if state or federal governments are willing to blow off the Bill of Rights, what difference is another little law from Congress? Alternatively, if you don't like that interpretation of the Second Amendment, you could try full faith and credit.

 

[CrackRabbit]

It's called the Second Amendment, and if state or federal governments are willing to blow off the Bill of Rights, what difference is another little law from Congress? Alternatively, if you don't like that interpretation of the Second Amendment, you could try full faith and credit.

That is all I have to say. If you are to dense to understand what I was getting at I can start to understand why this country has so many issues.

 

[Linflas]

My point is that for those who know their history, the states' rights argument was used as a reason to not let the federal government outlaw slavery. And that disagreement is one of the leading factors that caused the civil war.

It was also used to oppose tariffs on various goods by the Federal Government and a whole host of other issues having nothing to do with slavery. Slavery/racism claims whenever states rights are brought up are nothing more than an attempt to make any discussion of states rights verboten. Sadly it has been all too successful over the past 60-70 years.

 

[Throckmorton]

It was also used to oppose tariffs on various goods by the Federal Government and a whole host of other issues having nothing to do with slavery. Slavery/racism claims whenever states rights are brought up are nothing more than an attempt to make any discussion of states rights verboten. Sadly it has been all too successful over the past 60-70 years.

LOL a civil war over tariffs. Give me a break, that's revisionist politically correct garbage.

 

[nick1985]

LOL a civil war over tariffs. Give me a break, that's revisionist politically correct garbage.

There was much more to the civil war than slavery. MUCH more.

 

[Linflas]

LOL a civil war over tariffs. Give me a break, that's revisionist politically correct garbage.

Find me one mention of "a civil war over tariffs" in what I posted. Have you actually ever cracked a history book? States rights has been an on going discussion pretty much since the ratification of the US Constitution along with threats of secession over issues involving it.

 

[thraashman]

However, using states rights as an argument to allow individual states to deny an entire group of citizens rights has pretty much previously only been related to slavery and was the primary factor in causing the secession that caused the civil war.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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).

What third party?

 

[nick1985]

However, using states rights as an argument to allow individual states to deny an entire group of citizens rights has pretty much previously only been related to slavery and was the primary factor in causing the secession that caused the civil war.

Assuming you are talking about marriage, then the federal government should propose a constitutional amendment banning discriminating same sex marriages. Until them, its a states rights issue.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

It was also used to oppose tariffs on various goods by the Federal Government and a whole host of other issues having nothing to do with slavery. Slavery/racism claims whenever states rights are brought up are nothing more than an attempt to make any discussion of states rights verboten. Sadly it has been all too successful over the past 60-70 years.

Well said.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Gays have equal rights to marry just like the rest of us. A gay man can go out right now and marry a lesbian woman and receive every benefit offered by law.

Demonstrably false. I cannot marry the same person any given female can. Therefore an inequality of rights exists.

Would you support a brother and sister having the right to marry? Two brothers? A father and a son? Just curious if you feel there should be any limitations on marriage, or open season for all.

The only thing that proponents of same-sex marriage want is equal treatment for everyone, therefore there is nothing inconsistent about restricting interfamilial marriages for everyone, for example.

But I'm sure these factual, reasoned arguments are totally lost on you...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

When a woman gets pregnant, she is now sharing her body. At what point does the baby gain the right to life?

Babies are born.

And no person, born or unborn, as it were, has a right to occupy the body of another person, forcibly respirate and extract nutrients from that person's bloodstream, and inject that person with foreign hormones and waste without that person's explicit consent.

Facts to republicans are like crucifixes to vampires.

 

[Tristicus]

I don't advocate either abortion or homos marrying.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Assuming you are talking about marriage, then the federal government should propose a constitutional amendment banning discriminating same sex marriages. Until them, its a states rights issue.

Exactly. That was the point I was getting at here -- regulation of slavery (ie, the abolition of it) is a power explicitly given to the federal government via the 13th amendment pursuant to the division of powers outlined in the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment has been trampled so many times that those who scream "racism!" at the mere mention of states rights probably don't even realize it exists and it explicitly defines how powers are "supposed" to be separated between the federal government and the states.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

LOL a civil war over tariffs. Give me a break, that's revisionist politically correct garbage.

I think you need to review your history about the causes of the civil war. Slavery was a big reason, but by no means the only cause.