NationStates Jolt Archive

LINCOLN, Nebraska (AP) -- Supporters of banning gay marriage won two major court rulings Friday, with a federal appeals court reinstating Nebraska's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that voters should have a say on the issue.

Looks like the judges are saying to the populace that this is your issue and not ours yet again.

Nebraska gets the voter approved ban re-instated and the Tennessee Supreme Court stated that their voters should have a say on this issue.

Congrats to the federal court for keeping this issue at the state level and for TN in saying that their voters should have a say in it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/14/gay.marriage.ap/index.html <--Link

I don't get it. I thought the supreme court had ruled marriage a constitutional right?

*sigh*

what is wrong with same sex marrige? Nothing

I like how democracy is teh 1337 when it favours Western biggotry but teh sux0r0r when it favours Middle Eastern biggotry.

The ignorant, idiotic, homophobic hicks win.


hurray

Mmmm ... legislated bigotry.

Hooray for Democracy!

I like how democracy is teh 1337 when it favours Western biggotry but teh sux0r0r when it favours Middle Eastern biggotry.Well.. Democracy is bullshit, so why act all surprised?

*sigh*

what is wrong with same sex marrige? Nothing
Very true. I couldn't care less whether people want to get married regardless of sexual orientation, race, height, weight, or previous marital status. Quite frankly, I don't think it's any of my fucking business!

But ... yes, the voters in each state should have a say in anything they choose, as long as it doesn't violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It's called "democracy."

Well.. Democracy is bullshit, so why act all surprised?
And your alternative would be???

Well.. Democracy is bullshit, so why act all surprised?

Innuendo and out the other.

And your alternative would be???

Communism: goes down well with hot sauce.

In general, I'm glad the decisions are being returned to the states and to the voters for a final say. But I have to wonder what _real_ problems are being ignored in this kerfuffle over gay marriage.

Communism: goes down well with hot sauce.
Ha! "Communism." Translation: Dictatorship.

In general, I'm glad the decisions are being returned to the states and to the voters for a final say. But I have to wonder what _real_ problems are being ignored in this kerfuffle over gay marriage.
Ditto! Surely we have more presssing issues with which to deal? Like, oh, I don't know ... the national debt? Global warming? How to disengage in Iraq? You know ... minor issues like that. :rolleyes:

Ha! "Communism." Translation: Dictatorship.

No hot sauce for the troll.

Ditto! Surely we have more presssing issues with which to deal? Like, oh, I don't know ... the national debt? Global warming? How to disengage in Iraq? You know ... minor issues like that. :rolleyes:

Obviously institutional discrimination isn't a major issue in the ever-rising hierarchy of complaints against the government. :rolleyes:

Ditto! Surely we have more presssing issues with which to deal? Like, oh, I don't know ... the national debt? Global warming? How to disengage in Iraq? You know ... minor issues like that. :rolleyes:
Those _are_ important, but they aren't state issues, but I'm thinking of the voter ID problems, infrastructure rebuilding, school and student performance, Cindy McKinney ...

But it's like everything else. It's easy to demogogue gay marriage, but it's hard to solve real problems.

Speaking of national problems, if you were a member, would you quit the American Legion over their support of the amendment to prohibit flag burning?

Ha! "Communism." Translation: Dictatorship.You mean like a state telling it's citizens who they can & cannot marry?

Incidently, I'd take anarchy any day, over your rotten demockery.

All I can say is thank God that US is smart enough to deny civil rights to some of its citizens. For second there I thought they may have been getting tolerant on me letting blacks vote, but Im glad to see the US is as intolerant as ever. Tennessee gets a cookie.

I like how democracy is teh 1337 when it favours Western biggotry but teh sux0r0r when it favours Middle Eastern biggotry.
Yes, it's teh sh!tn3ss.

1. Those _are_ important, but they aren't state issues, but I'm thinking of the voter ID problems, infrastructure rebuilding, school and student performance, Cindy McKinney ...

2. But it's like everything else. It's easy to demogogue gay marriage, but it's hard to solve real problems.

3. Speaking of national problems, if you were a member, would you quit the American Legion over their support of the amendment to prohibit flag burning?
1. Uh ... "Cindy McKinney?" The others I agree with, but who is Cindy McKinney?

2. Yup! Sad, but true.

3. Hardly! I happen to believe in free speech, and if some idiot wants to burn the flag as a form of protest, I'll help fend off any violent detractors. I don't like it, but there it is. BTW ... I belong to the DAV and the VFW, but not the Legion. Aroundt here, all they seem to ever do is throw beer bashes and show porno. Hmmm! Perhaps I should have joined! :D

You mean like a state telling it's citizens who they can & cannot marry?
In fairness this law seems to have been decided by the majority, which is the oppostie of dictatorship.

Ditto! Surely we have more presssing issues with which to deal? Like, oh, I don't know ... the national debt? Global warming? How to disengage in Iraq? You know ... minor issues like that. :rolleyes:
This might be off topic but why would you disengage from Iraq? democracy needs to take root, the US wont leave for 10 years if they're smart.

You mean like a state telling it's citizens who they can & cannot marry?

Incidently, I'd take anarchy any day, over your rotten demockery.
Then you are indeed, anti-democratic. Too bad for you.

This might be off topic but why would you disengage from Iraq? democracy needs to take root, the US wont leave for 10 years if they're smart.
I'm not in favor of setting some sort of mandatory timetable for withdrawal, only concerned that we have a viable exit strategy. At some point in time, the damned Iraquis have to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own nation, yes?

Obviously institutional discrimination isn't a major issue in the ever-rising hierarchy of complaints against the government. :rolleyes:
Where did I either say or indicate such a thing?

In fairness this law seems to have been decided by the majority, which is the oppostie of dictatorship.
*nods in Agreement* unfortunatly, for some, they define Democracy as laws are decided by a few and imposed on the many.

Well.. Democracy is bullshit, so why act all surprised?
Exactly. I never understand why the "Western" world has this, aproaching fanatical, obsession with "democracy". Partisian democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) is possibly the worst choice to govern a group of people, because it leads almost always to a Tyranny by Majority (as this case proves). Only non-partisian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy) or direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy) overcomes these, and as such these are the only democratic options in allignment with individual rights. [/rant]

In fairness this law seems to have been decided by the majority, which is the oppostie of dictatorship.It's just a dictatorship of the masses, instead of a dictatorship of the few... And even then, it depends a hell of a lot on your perspective on it. For example, this particular totalitarian pile of shit was defecated by the favorite invisible buddy in America. So is it the invisible overlord who runs the show, or the general population?

Either way, it's bullshit. Freedom-hating bullshit even, which I think is pretty amusing, given the inane rethoric of the Christian right.Then you are indeed, anti-democratic.Quite perceptive. What tipped you off?Too bad for you.Only because all the silly demockeries always thoroughly kill everyone who tries to form anachies.

At some point in time, the damned Iraquis have to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own nation, yes?
"Damned Iraqis"? Yeah, what a hassle they've been for you - ever since they asked you to come over and plunge their nation into chaos for them, it's been nothing but complain, complain, complain...

Where did I either say or indicate such a thing?



...Surely we have more presssing issues with which to deal? Like, oh, I don't know ... the national debt? Global warming? How to disengage in Iraq? You know ... minor issues like that. :rolleyes:

?

I'm not in favor of setting some sort of mandatory timetable for withdrawal, only concerned that we have a viable exit strategy. At some point in time, the damned Iraquis have to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own nation, yes?
Well considering the US bomb the hell of them and killed countless innocent civilians in a war that shouldnt have been faught I say you give them as much time as they like.

1. Uh ... "Cindy McKinney?" The others I agree with, but who is Cindy McKinney?

2. Yup! Sad, but true.

3. Hardly! I happen to believe in free speech, and if some idiot wants to burn the flag as a form of protest, I'll help fend off any violent detractors. I don't like it, but there it is. BTW ... I belong to the DAV and the VFW, but not the Legion. Aroundt here, all they seem to ever do is throw beer bashes and show porno. Hmmm! Perhaps I should have joined! :D
Cindy McKinney is our beloved , female, black, woman Congresswoman, who demonstrated that it is okay to assault a Capitol policeman.

I belong to the Legion for the dual purposes of competing in the monthly turkey shoot. It's great to have a place in town where shooting shotguns outdoors is okay. Second reason is to stop by on the way home from work and have a drink. Our Post plays bingo. There seems to be a big difference between bingo and porn. Maybe I need to bring that up at the next meeting.

Anyhow, I mostly ignore the kerfuffle over the amendment because I like the guys I drink with and I figure it would just start an irrational argument. But my firm belief is that we should never allow the government to restrict our rights.

Well considering the US bomb the hell of them and killed countless innocent civilians in a war that shouldnt have been faught I say you give them as much time as they like.You lie!! They had hella many hella great-big knockleuelar bombs & Saddam wore the same tie as Osama bin Rouladen! And Iraq had scary rockets capable of delivering cold pizzas across several miles.

They were SO a threat to the United Bluff, and you know it. And as soon as all the ragheads have been properly indoctrinated in Jesuanity, our great armies will have time to preemtively bomb the fuck out of the next major threat to world pieces: arthritic ants!!1!!

Very true. I couldn't care less whether people want to get married regardless of sexual orientation, race, height, weight, or previous marital status. Quite frankly, I don't think it's any of my fucking business!

But ... yes, the voters in each state should have a say in anything they choose, as long as it doesn't violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It's called "democracy."

I have argued that denying same sex marriages violates the 14th amendment.

however, since mine does not seem to be the view of the 9 on high, it is a state issue.

Being gay in the "heartland". Yow. Wear a helmet.

I thought the US was a republic and not a tyrrany of the majority. Having the populace vote on what rights minorities should have?

Such a preposterous mockery of decency.

I thought the US was a republic and not a tyrrany of the majority. Having the populace vote on what rights minorities should have?

Such a preposterous mockery of decency.Tyrrany of the Majority, Tyrrany of the Minority, both are a mockery of Decency.

Ditto! Surely we have more presssing issues with which to deal? Like, oh, I don't know ... the national debt? Global warming? How to disengage in Iraq? You know ... minor issues like that. :rolleyes:

Or, you know, the denied rights of a minority?

Sure, the black rights issue in the 60s was just getting in the way of other, more important, issues!

Tyrrany of the Majority, Tyrrany of the Minority, both are a mockery of Decency.

Not when one acts to expand freedoms, in lieu of curtailing them.

Not when one acts to expand freedoms, in lieu of curtailing them.Freedom without restraint is Anarchy.

Freedom without restraint is Anarchy.

You mean to say, "freedom without restraint is anarchy," not Anarchy.

Freedom without restraint is Anarchy.

Arbitrarily forced restraint is idiocy.

Cindy McKinney is our beloved , female, black, woman Congresswoman, who demonstrated that it is okay to assault a Capitol policeman.

I had forgotten about her dumb ass. Thanks for the reminder. :mad:

That whole thing was a complete dog and pony show, and McKinney played dual roles.

I thought the US was a republic and not a tyrrany of the majority. Having the populace vote on what rights minorities should have?

Such a preposterous mockery of decency.
Nice to see you, Fass.

My fervent wish is for a Tyrrany of Common Sense.

Consensual acts need no laws.

*nods in Agreement* unfortunatly, for some, they define Democracy as laws are decided by a few and imposed on the many.
What are you talking about? Regarding this issue, no laws are being forced on the many either way.

It's just a dictatorship of the masses, instead of a dictatorship of the few... And even then, it depends a hell of a lot on your perspective on it. For example, this particular totalitarian pile of shit was defecated by the favorite invisible buddy in America. So is it the invisible overlord who runs the show, or the general population?
Isn't dictatorship of the masses/proletariat also known as democracy?

Or, you know, the denied rights of a minority?

Sure, the black rights issue in the 60s was just getting in the way of other, more important, issues!
But global warming is obviously more important. It affects everyone, not just a minority.

Arbitrarily forced restraint is idiocy.
Self Restraint is useless and rare forcing restraint to be used... Idioic or not.

Or, you know, the denied rights of a minority?

Sure, the black rights issue in the 60s was just getting in the way of other, more important, issues!
Good point, and it reminds me of what George Carlin said about Muhammed Ali:

"He's back doing his job now, beating people up. The government told him he couldn't do his job for a couple of years because he refused to go and kill some other people. Ali said 'No thanks, I'll beat 'em up, but I won't kill 'em'."

But global warming is obviously more important. It affects everyone, not just a minority.

So the denied rights of a minority should just be swept under the carpet?

There's room to debate two things at once.

Some rules are necessary -- they tell a society that their individual freedom ends where another person's begins.

Rules become unnecessary and methods of subjugation (or revenue enhancement) when they are used to curtail freedoms that do not impinge upon the freedoms of others.

Self Restraint is useless and rare forcing restraint to be used... Idioic or not.

Idiotic, period, in this case. There is no pressing public interest whatsoever in withholding rights here. Only idiocy.

I'm putting a stop to this!


PUDDING!

Arbitrarily forced restraint is idiocy.

Oh you're such a top.

What are you talking about? Regarding this issue, no laws are being forced on the many either way.simple, people reguard the "Majority rules" side of Democracy as Non Democratic or a Mockery of Democracy. not realizing that the other side, where the few or the one making rules for all is just as bad, if not worse. the two states are allowing the popular vote to be kept, basically, the majority of the people want to bann same sex marriage. so if forcing the minority to accept this is a Dictatorship of the masses, then what would you call the Majority being forced to endure laws they don't want... reguardless of what that law is.

the best sign of a system that it uses the same procedures to produce results that a person finds Favorable as well as results that the same person may also find unfavorable.


Isn't dictatorship of the masses/proletariat also known as democracy?yep, except you tend to have more happy people when the masses get what they want.

Idiotic, period, in this case. There is no pressing public interest whatsoever in withholding rights here. Only idiocy.
for those two states, the majority of the people want it banned, then let it be banned in those two states.

Idotic yes, but to force it on the majority is not just as idiotic but also a sign of dictatorship.

I'm putting a stop to this!


PUDDING!make it Chocolate and Banana pudding!

for those two states, the majority of the people want it banned, then let it be banned in those two states.

Idotic yes, but to force it on the majority is not just as idiotic but also a sign of dictatorship.

The majority stealing rights from the minority is just as much a dictatorship.

If "the people" in those two states want voting rights removed from woman, or racial minorities, that's just OK, yea?

The majority stealing rights from the minority is just as much a dictatorship.

If "the people" in those two states want voting rights removed from woman, or racial minorities, that's just OK, yea?
Not if they're subject to the Voting Rights Act.

Oh you're such a top.

Oh, you know you wanna blow me.

To roughly paraphrase: A dictatorship of the majority is a dictatorship none the less.

Well jesus does this argument have to be done to death? Gay marriage logically has nothing wrong with it (granted we were meant as a race to be heterosexual, this is an inarguable fact.). However, to some wishing to preserve aspects of Old America, there IS something wrong with it. I consider myself more of a Conservative than most, but I see nothing wrong with gay marriage. However i hardly think all of these white kids with dreadlocks screaming "ANARCHY! HAIL MARX! UP WITH SOCIALISM!" are going to get ANYTHING done by attempting to turn America into anyone of these 3 governmental forms. It was attempted in the 60's and 70's by a bunch of Cannabis junkies, and it sure as hell isn't going to work now.

So the denied rights of a minority should just be swept under the carpet?

There's room to debate two things at once.
Of course not. I'm just dismissing any elevation of same sex marriage to "most important issue" status. It is an issue, even if a minor one.

Self Restraint is useless and rare forcing restraint to be used... Idioic or not.
I have no idea what you're even talking about now.

simple, people reguard the "Majority rules" side of Democracy as Non Democratic or a Mockery of Democracy. not realizing that the other side, where the few or the one making rules for all is just as bad, if not worse. the two states are allowing the popular vote to be kept, basically, the majority of the people want to ban same sex marriage.
The US isn't a democracy. You guys don't vote on everything democratically. You can't even amend your own Constitution by popular vote. Why pretend it is?

Your supreme courts didn't listen to the majority on the similar issue of interracial marriage 40 years ago. I doubt they'll particularly listen this time.

Idotic yes, but to force it on the majority is not just as idiotic but also a sign of dictatorship.
I don't think that with this particular issue, it would be possible to "force same sex marriage" on everyone. Most people would have nothing to do with it.