Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on August 17, 2012 at 3:28pm

There are several areas in which it appears the feds really should not be involved: Health care, Housing, and Education are three that immediately come to mind.

 

What makes you think those are not the legitimate concerns of the federal government, specifically? 

 

All of the recent talk about gay marriage is just one (of many) items, that I don't believe should be a Fed issue. Let the states decide for themselves. Each State has a constitution, an elected government, and a court system, they are fully capable of dealing with social issues.

 

What happens when a state decides not to honor weddings that were performed in a church but did not have a civil servant present? (Hypothetical) Or a wedding between a black man and a white woman? (Historical)

Because this is one country and people move from state to state regularly, unless there is at least a federal mandate of reciprocity for certain types of laws, that gets messy. And that is problematic because then one state can make a decision on its own, and force all other states to accommodate - I think there is a good reason to have a federal provision in place for some issues, including marriage. You can argue that people can choose to move in order to accommodate their beliefs... but for a wide range of reasons (especially in a down economy), that is not always a feasible option. For me, I don't see that as a viable policy, and opens the door to a huge range of abuses. 

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on August 17, 2012 at 4:28pm

Yes. Something like that. But, also, as we know, a gay couple married in NYC, who travels or moves to Texas, is not considered legally married. So, I think it absolutely appropriate that the Federal government step in when the States do not show full faith and credit towards one another (I'm sure there is some legal loophole or precedent that allows them to currently decide that without actively being unconstitutional). 

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on August 17, 2012 at 4:31pm

That is because NY decided to change the definition of marriage. If one state decided to define an airplane as an automobile and allow the citizens of that state to register airplanes like they do cars no other state would accept the airplane to be registered in their state.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on August 17, 2012 at 4:39pm

There's that loophole. Thanks. 

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on August 17, 2012 at 4:45pm

Eh.  I don't think the Constitution requires all fifty states to adopt the law of the most extreme examples ... so if NY passes some wild-ass marriage law that nobody else agrees with, their law becomes forced down the throat of the other 49 whether they like it or not.

 

The NY legislature doesn't have the power to change TX law ... and NY is not giving any fuller faith-and-credit to the Texas definition of marriage than Texas is to New York's (far less historically precedented) definition.  Some might even say that Texas law simply recognizes that gay people aren't married ... even in NY.

JB

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on August 17, 2012 at 4:47pm

They're at 8 states now, of course... so what's the tipping point for what becomes the recognized definition from a reciprocity standpoint? or is there one?

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on August 17, 2012 at 5:04pm

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't one.  Part of the point of having separate sovereign State governments is that people can choose to live in the State whose law they prefer.

 

I'm fine with that.  I don't want a State income tax, so I don't live in California.  I don't want government healthcare, so I'm not moving to Massachussetts.  I want to be able to carry a weapon for self-defense, so I'm not moving to Illinois.  I don't agree with New York's redefintion of marriage ... but, I don't live in NY, so ultimately its not my freaking problem.

 

Mostly, just leave Texas alone.  If some other State wants to turn themself into a combination of the Soviet Union and Gomorrah, I'll probably make fun of them, and talk about why its a bad idea philosophically ... but ultimately they can run themselves into the ground if they want.  Its their State ... if its what the voter want, let 'em have it and suffer the consequences.

 

There are exceptions, but only a few ... mostly in areas where God-given rights are concerned, and State intrusion cannot be acceptable, even with democratic consent.  Free speech.  Freedom of religion.  Right to keep and bear arms.  Right to Life.  Freedom of Enterprise/Property Ownership.  Right to Privacy.  Etc.

 

JB

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on August 17, 2012 at 5:07pm

Thanks for clarifying your perspective, JB. I can certainly understand where you are coming from, even if I do not entirely agree. 

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on August 17, 2012 at 5:34pm

California asked voters twice if they wanted same sex marriage. Twice the voters of California said "no." The voters of California were ignored and circumvented and now you are using them to say the rest of the states should follow along? That sounds like a poor argument to me. Seems more like we are looking at a slippery slope type of thing and the people on your side can't be trusted to respect the will of the people after taking an issue to a vote.

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on August 17, 2012 at 5:44pm

Liberals are very in favor of democracy ... until democracy thinks they're wrong.

JB

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on August 17, 2012 at 5:48pm

Americans are very in favor of democracy ... until democracy thinks they're wrong.

 

Fixed that for you. 

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on August 17, 2012 at 6:04pm

Conservatives are altogether less enamored with democracy than liberals.  Tyranny of the majority is just as tyrannical.

Government must have a democratic component.  Democracy itself doesn't work, though.

JB

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page