Other than RKBA, what are your main voting issues?

[Ivy Mike]

Stage 2, the government is under no obligation to validate anything.
Laws don't make things legal, the lack of law does. Laws make things illegal.

No one has yet been able to make a cohesive argument showing that gay marriages are any more or less beneficial to society than straight marriages. Despite what you may think, its not standing before the pastor, family and god that made you married in the eyes of the state.
It was jumping through those hoops, paying the fees and signing your civil contract with your wife that made you married according to the state.

Finally, the comparison to Jim Crow laws isn't invalid.
While anyone is free to have a relationship with another person who is of age, only the gay ones are prevented from marrying under state law. This sets down a requirement of the people, by the state. No different than Jim Crow laws my friend.
Thats just the thing, gay individual are NOT free to go to a church and be legally married. They don't enjoy the same benefits as straight married couples because they don't meet state requirements.

 

[GoRon]

My last post on this.

In the US marriage is a privilege granted by the state who issues a license.

I submit we take the government out of the marriage license business and let contract law take care of the details. We can still get married in church and nobody can force a church to marry couples they don't want to marry.

Gay folks want the same privilege and government stamp of approval that straight couples get.

Privilege? What privilege might that be? Everyone else seems to have the right to get married.

If it requires a license from the government it is NOT a right but a government granted PRIVILEGE.

 

[RealGun]

Are we here to debate what others voting priorities should or should not be or to find out what they are? Seems like a bunch of nazis to me.

 

[Ivy Mike]

If it requires a license from the government it is NOT a right but a government granted PRIVILEGE.

Quite true...kinda like the CHL I carry in my wallet.


RealGun, while this thread is about what issues people vote for, if we adhered to that alone, it would be a lot of people simply making a list of why they vote and who for.
Debate helps us determine truth. SolaScriptura139 took another look after a bit of debate. He/She found fault and thought about it. I don't know if I still agree with them, but at least they thought about it and made or is going to make a more educated decision...and thats all I ask.
Be strong in your convictions, just understand why you call them yours.

 

[RealGun]

RealGun, while this thread is about what issues people vote for, if we adhered to that alone, it would be a lot of people simply making a list of why they vote and who for.
Debate helps us determine truth.

Ah phooey! These threads are not here as our little sandbox. We are supposed to stay on topic.

 

[Ivy Mike]

we are on topic.
We are discussing the issues people vote on.

 

[STAGE 2]

Despite what you may think, its not standing before the pastor, family and god that made you married in the eyes of the state.
It was jumping through those hoops, paying the fees and signing your civil contract with your wife that made you married according to the state.

You read what I said, but you apparently didn't understand it. Whether the state chooses to acknowledge my marriage has nothing to do with whether I am married or not.

If John Q Public and Jane Doe decide to go down to the chapel and have a wedding with their family friends and pastor and say "I do", then they are married. The state may not recognize it, but that doesnt make them any less married in their eyes, their families eyes, or God's eyes.

Gay people are free to do the same (providing they can find a church that will do it). The only thing that state acknowledgement does is grant you some additional rights regarding your partner and split your assets.

As for Jim Crow, I don't remember seeing any signs on lunchrooms or stores that said "Straight Only". I can't seem to remember any dogs or firehoses being set on gay people either. Come to think of it, I don't ever recall separate schools for gay's and separate schools for straight's.

I'm not saying gay people don't have the right to complain, I'm just saying that their complaint's are unfounded and seem really ridiculous when they make a comparison to civil rights.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Stage 2,
I understood you quite well. I realize that it is the commitment that makes a marriage, not some state say-so. You are correct again in saying that state acknowledgment provides benefits. That is where the argument comes in. The state acknowledging one marriage over another simply based on the sex of the couple is wrong. It specifically prevents gay couples from enjoying the same benefits of marriage. Things like health insurance and tax breaks.

You didn't see signs discriminating against sexual preference because thats not what Jim Crow laws were about.

Jim Crow laws discriminated against someone simply because of the color of their skin. They were thrown out as unconstitutional.
Now, we have laws that discriminate simply because of the sex the person is attracted to. The key word here is discriminate.

Discriminate: To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

This is going to come down to deciding whether or not marriage is a privilege or a right. If its a privilege, what are the conditions for application to gain this privilege and can they be met equally? If its a right, how can you justify preventing one person from marrying another simply based on the sex of the couple?

 

[RealGun]

We are discussing the issues people vote on.

And harassing their reasons.

 

[STAGE 2]

This is going to come down to deciding whether or not marriage is a privilege or a right.

You bet. Now if you can show me where marriage is mentioned in the bill of rights or the constitution I'll concede the point.

As for the Jim Crow thing, heres the deal. The benefits that stem from from marriage are given out and created by the government. Government created it and as a result it reserves the right to decide who to apply it to.

Unlike jim crow which affected the daily lives and specifically enumerated freedoms of black folks, gay people are free to live life as they choose and even get married, they just wont get the extra perks. Compare that with a black man trying to get a bite to eat or ride a bus in the 60's.

Marriage benefits are not solely discriminatory towards gays. They are equally discriminatory towards heterosexual people that want a long term relationship but dont want to be married.

The government has the power to regulate certian practices and promote certian practices. By providing a benefit to married people, the government is certianly alienating a marge majority of society, both gay and straight, however it reserves the right to do so.

 

[Ivy Mike]

And harassing their reasons.

Merely pointing out inconsistencies.
They disagree with other parties every election. Is it so bad to do it here, but include logical debate?

Its simply going back and forth to determine logical truth. Nobody is harassing anybody as long as we remain civil, which as far as I can tell, everyone has.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Stage 2,

The Constitution and BoR protects rights, it does not grant them. Just because a right isn't mentioned, doesn't mean it does not exist.

The benefits of marriage are not solely given by the government. Things like health insurance which only covers a spouse are things denied to homosexuals because of the governments decision to discriminate.

I would probably say that marriage has an effect on the daily lives of ALL married couples. If a child or a spouse gets sick, the bills can be covered by insurance. Not so with a gay couple. They also don't get the benefit of tax breaks nor do they have the authority over certain medical decisions if the other should be incapacitated. Imagine having to watch the woman you love being kept alive by machines and not being able to do anything to let her go simply because the state doesn't recognize the bond between you. Thats complete bull***t.

You claim that marriage benefits aren't solely discriminatory towards gays is laughable. First off, a heterosexual couple can get married if they want. That is a personal choice. The benefits of marriage are not forbidden to them simply because of the sex of their partner. When did it become OK for a government to be discriminatory?

I guess if you're OK with legal bigotry and discrimination, then thats all she wrote. I, on the other hand, have a problem with our government refusing to protect the rights of its own citizens. Sadly, society is conditioned to where it accepts things like this...things like needing permission to carry a gun or needing a permit to assemble peaceably.

 

[mountainclmbr]

FREEDOM. I could not care less for political correctness. I should be FREE if I don't harm some one else! I don't count the SOCIALIST claim that my prosperity takes from an underprivileged person. It is not a zero sum equation. All should be able to accumulate wealth except if stolen by the state. In statist societies, people have no incentive to be innovative or work hard, the rewards will just be stolen by the state. However, I would support reverse Kelo to take personal property from leftists and return it to tax payers. Like Robbin Hood!

 

[STAGE 2]

Just because a right isn't mentioned, doesn't mean it does not exist.

Well, yes and no. The constitution is a limitation on the federal government. It tells the feds, and the states to some extent via the 14th, what they can and cannot do.

As a result, unless you can show me something in the constitution that specifically grants people the right to marry without government interference then all your arguments are in vain.

Of course if you wanted to you could always "read in" rights that simply are not there, but then again you would be no better than people who think the 2nd amendment is for militias only, or is only for muskets.

Furthermore, the government discriminates all the time. It discriminates based on age, on gender in some circumstances, it discriminates with those that have children, those that drive hybrid cars and so on and so forth.

None of these things are illegal, nor should they be.

At the basest level, straight married couples have the ability to procreate. Gay couples do not. Most marriages, whether they last or not, result in children. It is in a society's best interest to have future generations. Therefore if a government wants to encourage something that is in its interest by offering people an incentive, then government can do that.

Denying gay couples these few contractual advantages/obligations is not preventing them from getting "married", saying their vows and growing old together.


I'm not begrudging you your opinion. What I am saying is that you have no legal basis for your argument. Spend some time reading some SCOTUS cases on what are considered "fundamental rights". You'll be surprised what you'll find.

If you want to have gay marriage as a fundamental right, or straight marriage for that matter, then pass an amendment. Short of that the only alternative is to find a judge who will ignore the law and decide how he pleases.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Stage 2,
You will never find anything in the constitution or BoR that specifically grants anyone the right to do anything. Thats not how it works. The constitution assumes rights to exist even if they are not mentioned. The constitution protects said rights. Its not "the right to keep and bear arms is hereby granted."
Its "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Again, your argument about reading in rights is invalid. Even if the right isn't mentioned, it still exists. The government doesn't grant rights, it protects them and that protection moves from the assumption that the right is preexisting.

The discrimination you speak of is there to protect people who are not held legally responsible for all their actions yet. You'll have trouble pointing out discrimination based on sex or marital status or automobile choice.

Your next statement assumes that marriage is about having children. As people get married for reasons other than childbirth, your argument is invalid. Marriage isn't always about family although that is one reason it exists. One could also argue that gay marriage is good for family. Gay couples don't produce unwanted children. Gay couples also tend to be older and more established should they decide on children. This has quite a positive effect on a society that already supports thousands of unwanted children from heterosexuals. Remember, gay couples don't make orphans. Your argument could also be used to argue that couple not intending to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry. Also, one could argue that marriage laws stifle the number of offspring by placing limits on how many women a man can sleep with and requiring him to be responsible for the resulting children.

Sorry, but the government (state or fed) doesn't follow your definition of marriage and I've pointed out the differences. Marriage in most states requires a marriage license of some sort. The states that forbid gay marriage will not grant these to their gay citizens. In fact, here is the section in Nevada's constitution that forbids it.
Article 1 Sec: 21. Limitation on recognition of marriage. Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.
That is pretty cut and dried. The state will not recognize any marriage that is not between a man and a woman. Gay couples are NOT married in this state.

I think you should probably read a few cases regarding marriage. I'd also like to see Supreme Court cases regarding this as this isn't something the court has really ruled on. Its largely been a state matter.

 

[Freedspeak]

Strict constitutionalist! As to immigration ( the current hot topic), come on in, true freedom is the freedom to starve and there are no free rides(no welfare or other gov. programs)

We get rid of the government giveaways, we would be better off ( sad and harsh but true).!

As to the discrimination due to sexual preference (in what are basicaly civil issues of contract law) why should their rights be any different than the ones my wife and I have from a handfasting perormed by a notary!

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

I want my representitives and representation to be .. :


Pro RKBA - Don't mess with our liberty teeth.

Pro Life - Don't mess with babies. Must abolish abortion.

Pro Constitution - Must uphold the constitution - Willing to reduce, then possibly eliminate income tax.

Willing to abolish the Federal Reserve System.

Abolish electronic "black-box" voting system.

Willing to create a new system of fair and unencumbered candidate financing rules. Willing to push for laws that will allow a candidate to place any and all of their financial holdings to be liquedated and applied into a blind account managed by an approved investment company. Or liquedate and put into a trust/savings account. Since they can't seem to stop playing favorites and doing "favors" then take all that away. No more big corp campaign money.
Freedom isn't free. A candidate must show that they they put the duty above all other interests. Discourage "professional" or "groomed" politcians.

Critical of US-based corperations that harm America. Be it economically or ecologically.

Critical of the Health-Care Industrial Complex.
I always refer to : "Treat the cause, not the symptom"
Words need to be had with the FDA. A re-charter and re-org sounds good.
Words need to be had with the Schools that teach medical doctors.
Discourage pandering of prescription drugs onto the populace.
Encourage the industry to drop tv-ads to reduce the cost of medications that are actually needed and quit giving ammo to hypochondriacs that drug themselves and their children into oblivion.

Willing to address "Evolution" and "Creation" in public schools. Equal or neither.


There's more, but I'm tired,



Here's some adjectives I'd like to be able to apply to whatever I'm voting for :

Honest
Just
Honorable
Integrity
Character

 

[JerryM]

Marriage is defined by our Creator. He defined it as between one man and one woman for life.

He also said that homosexuality is an abomination, and that homosexuals cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven, and that sin is a reproach to any people.

That is plenty good enough for me.


Jerry

 

[STAGE 2]

Again, your argument about reading in rights is invalid. Even if the right isn't mentioned, it still exists. The government doesn't grant rights, it protects them and that protection moves from the assumption that the right is preexisting.

I'm not sure what is getting lost in translation here so I'll spell it out.

1. the constitution is a document limiting the power of the government

2. it contains specific prohibitions on the governments actions

3. it also contains specific grants of power to the government

Taking these three things, into consideration, there is nothing in the constitution that limits a governments ability to grant benefits to married people.

There can be as many "rights" floating around in oblivion as you want there to be, but thats not the point. There is no restriction in the constitution on the government where marriage is concerned.

Tomorrow, if the government refused to recognize any marriages, it would be within its rights to do so. That would not stop people from going to church, and getting married in a personal or religious sense. It would just mean that the government would stop handing out its perks.

And that is the only thing that a marriage license gets you. The tax benefits, the spousal rights, community property stuff, etc. Everything else that comes with a marriage, the till death do you part stuff, is freely available to gay couples.

A gay couple can walk into a church and have a ceremony with all the trimmings. The fact that the state does not recognize it doesn't deny them from having the essential elements of a marriage.

So, unless you can show me something in the constitution that prohibits the government from providing benefits to married people, then, as I stated before, an amendment is your only recourse.

 

[ctdonath]

Laws don't make things legal, the lack of law does. Laws make things illegal.

Great line.

 

[Ivy Mike]

There is NOTHING about marriage in the constitution. The power to recognize marriages and hand out benefits is neither forbidden nor is it granted to the government. The federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage according to DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act in 1996) but there have been numerous suits over this with 2 or 3 presently under review right now.

I still don't see how you can claim gay couples can get married when the legal definition laid out in DOMA reads like this.
"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

Thats pretty cut and dried. you can define marriage as two people saying their vows and making a committment, but without legal standing it means exactly dick. The government also disagrees with you.
I believe the definition I posted above demonstrates that the government is selective about who it provides benefits to and who it does not. If you're gay, you do NOT get the benefits of being married.

And that is the only thing that a marriage license gets you. The tax benefits, the spousal rights, community property stuff, etc. Everything else that comes with a marriage, the till death do you part stuff, is freely available to gay couples.

and here you acknowledge the legally protected discrimination.

I guess we're at a stalemate here. Some folks want equality and rights and others...want god.

oh, and oo7, don't think I didn't catch that little blurb about Evolution and Creationism taught equally in school. Creationism is not a scientific theory and that isn't in debate. To pretend that there is a serious rift between scientists about Evolution and Creationism is just confusing to students and school boards. Science classes should teach science, not superstition.

 

[STAGE 2]

This is gonna be my last reply on the subject since the dead horse is telling me to quit already.

I still don't see how you can claim gay couples can get married when the legal definition laid out in DOMA reads like this.
"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

Ok. Once again there is a legal aspect to marriage and a practical aspect to marriage. Legally, government doesn't recognize gay marriages for the purposes of benefits. However, there is no law that says gay people can't go into a church, say their vows and do 98.5 percent of the things that straight people do.

I am not married because some minimum wage clerk down at the los angeles county records building stamped my certificate. Quite the contrary. I'm married because of the ceremony I went through and the promises I made. Marriage existed long before the US government, and long before any government for that matter.

Do you honestly think that people would stop getting married if all of a sudden the government stopped giving perks. Of course not. People who get married, don't do so for the technical benefits (at least those who want a successful marriage don't). Ask around. I can guarantee most if not all of the married people on the board here didn't go into their marriage for the tax benefits or the community property perks.

Thus to suggest that gay people are being denied "marriage" isn't completely accurate. They are being denied the perks that the government offers that accompany marriage. Marriage itself is freely available to gay couples.

This is unlike segregation where if you rode on the wrong place on the bus you got thrown in jail or worse. Gays are not getting jail time for having ceremonies, living together, or growing old together. They are just not getting a perk essentially because they can't procreate and raise a family.

The government also disagrees with you. I believe the definition I posted above demonstrates that the government is selective about who it provides benefits to and who it does not. If you're gay, you do NOT get the benefits of being married.

Yeah, I know the government is selective about to whom it provides benefits. Thats the whole point. The government can be selective about this because we the people haven't restricted its power to do so. You may not like it, you may think it is archaic, bigoted and discriminatory, but that won't change the fact that its perfectly legal.

Again, if you don't like it then amend the constitution.

Some folks want equality and rights and others...want god.

Thats another disingenuous statement. There are plenty of non-religious people who are opposed to gay marriage.

Also, "some folks" isn't very accurate either. Upwards of 70 percent of the country is opposed to gay marriage. I don't believe in mob rule but when you have an issue that is legally within the purview of the government, then its certianly within the rights of citizen to vote yea or nay.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Well, if you aren't married because of the marriage license, why bother with it at all? Bring up the idea of getting a legal divorce to your wife but saying you're still married. Betcha she's not too keen on the idea.

Some people would stop getting married if the government quit making it a worthwhile investment. Not all marriages are about love and children.

Marriage is not freely available to gay couples. Partnership and companionship are available. The government specifically singles out a section of its population and says "you cannot marry the person you love" simply because of their sex, they are not allowed to be married. And if you don't think gay couples can get in trouble, just ask them to check Married instead of single on their 1040 form. The tax man doesn't look kindly on things like that.

Thankfully, there is an amendment pushing through that could very well signal the end to sex based discrimination. In fact, it already has 35 or the 38 states needed.

I doubt you'll find too many people opposed to gay marriage for reasons outside religion.

 

[STAGE 2]

 

[HankB]

Voting issues . . .

1. RKBA . . . I find this is generally a good litmus test for other issues.

2. Government spending - it upsets me that spending is growing faster than population, faster than inflation, and in fact faster than the product of inflation and population.

3. Toleration of millions upon millions of illegal aliens.

4. Taxation - it sickens me that taxes consume more of my income than food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. (related to #2, above.)

5. Size of government. (Again, see #2)