North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[Phatscotty]

I'm currently in the process of being hired to speak around my state on the issue of marriage.

I don't understand this part. Are you speaking to inform people about what marriage is? Are you speaking to persuade them that allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy marriage? I'm not trying to be a smartass...I really don't understand why someone would pay someone else to "speak on the issue of marriage".

I am not sure yet. what I want to do is simply explain what this issue means on 4 or 5 different levels, and I do not plan on making a religious argument at all. From all the people who I have talked to, I realize that most people have not even begun to explore the issue on anything except for the most basic level.

Example: "Do you support gay marriage?" most common answer "Yes. I think people should be able to love whoever they want." They do not even realize that people absolutely already can and do love WHOEVER they want. Right at that exact moment, 5 seconds into the conversation, I continually see the light-bulb turn on in their heads. They have never thought past that. There is no law that prevents gay people from being gay, or says who you can or can't love. I 100% support people loving whoever they love, and I 100% understand it's none of my business.

It's a big deal because we are voting in my state this November if we are going to amend our constitution to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. fyi we are also voting on voter ID. Voter ID has 70+ support, and traditional marriage is over 60%.

[Woodruff]

I'm currently in the process of being hired to speak around my state on the issue of marriage.

I don't understand this part. Are you speaking to inform people about what marriage is? Are you speaking to persuade them that allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy marriage? I'm not trying to be a smartass...I really don't understand why someone would pay someone else to "speak on the issue of marriage".

I am not sure yet. what I want to do is simply explain what this issue means on 4 or 5 different levels, and I do not plan on making a religious argument at all. From all the people who I have talked to, I realize that most people have not even begun to explore the issue on anything except for the most basic level.

Example: "Do you support gay marriage?" most common answer "Yes. I think people should be able to love whoever they want." They do not even realize that people absolutely already can and do love WHOEVER they want. Right at the moment, 5 seconds into the conversation, I continually see the light-bulb turn on in their heads. They have never thought past that. There is no law that prevents gay people from being gay, or says who you can or can't love. I 100% support people loving whoever they love, and I 100% understand it's none of my business.

It's a big deal because we are voting in my state this November if we are going to amend our constitution to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. fyi we are also voting on voter ID. Voter ID has 70+ support, and traditional marriage is over 60%.

So it's the second question, then?

[Phatscotty]

I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

[Woodruff]

I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

So you will tell them both that marriage is only between a man and a woman and ALSO that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Or am I misunderstanding?

[Phatscotty]

I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

So you will tell them both that marriage is only between a man and a woman and ALSO that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Or am I misunderstanding?

No. I will tell them all that "it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level". You aren't misunderstanding, you are trying to force something into the conversation that isn't there. I do not plan on saying anything close to what marriage is or what it isn't. It's more about how it should be dealt with in a fair, democratic, and liberty minded way.

For everyone to have an equal say is the only way to truly deal with this in a fair way.

[Woodruff]

I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

So you will tell them both that marriage is only between a man and a woman and ALSO that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Or am I misunderstanding?

No. I will tell them all that "it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level". You aren't misunderstanding, you are trying to force something into the conversation that isn't there.

If the vote is already happening in your state, then why would they need someone to tell them that? I'm not trying to force anything but clarification from you.

[Phatscotty]

I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

So you will tell them both that marriage is only between a man and a woman and ALSO that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Or am I misunderstanding?

No. I will tell them all that "it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level". You aren't misunderstanding, you are trying to force something into the conversation that isn't there.

If the vote is already happening in your state, then why would they need someone to tell them that? I'm not trying to force anything but clarification from you.

Because, nobody has heard about or thought about these things, as I originally stated in this line of conversation. The clarity is there.

[Woodruff]

I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

So you will tell them both that marriage is only between a man and a woman and ALSO that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Or am I misunderstanding?

No. I will tell them all that "it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level". You aren't misunderstanding, you are trying to force something into the conversation that isn't there.

If the vote is already happening in your state, then why would they need someone to tell them that? I'm not trying to force anything but clarification from you.

Because, nobody has heard about or thought about these things, as I originally stated in this line of conversation. The clarity is there.

Nobody has heard about or thought about States Rights? That's what you're saying here?

I guess my point is that it would have to be an awfully short talk, if what you're saying is true. There really isn't a lot of explanation that can be involved, and so it seems strange to me that someone would pay someone else to give such a very short talk on such a subject.

[Phatscotty]

Check this post too, or else scroll to the top of this page
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&start=405#p3783441
add the other things I listed besides states rights, and the conversation will get longer. Shit, look how long this one is and we haven't even started yet!

I don't know exactly what will happen with the position if I get it. But I imagine a lot of it will be question and answer.

[Woodruff]

Check this post too, or else scroll to the top of this page
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&start=405#p3783441
add the other things I listed besides states rights, and the conversation will get longer. Shit, look how long this one is and we haven't even started yet!

I'm going to presume your link was a mistake, because there's nothing in that post that we haven't covered in the last couple of posts.

I don't know exactly what will happen with the position if I get it. But I imagine a lot of it will be question and answer.

Should states make the decision? Yes. Question and answer session concludes. <grin>

[Phatscotty]

right, but when you said "nobody has heard of states rights?" and concluded it would be a short conversation, even though we have covered it in the last couple posts, you left out the other things that were in the link I shared.

Fairness, Democracy, Liberty, and states rights, as well as many other things. So it would be a longer conversation than you assume.

If you want to continue, it needs to be in another marriage thread, because I don't like posting in threads that have lies in their titles.

[Lootifer]

Id love to hear a podcast or recording of any speech you make PS.

Like Woodruff says if allyou care about is the promotion of democratic process then hell you wont even need to make a speech; just a website and relevant flyers/information is more than enough.

I assume you will be employeed by your local state government for this kind of promotional work?

[GreecePwns]

I hope you come to New York. I will show up to one of your speeches and ask "why at the state level? why not at the county level or town level?"

[patrickaa317]

I hope you come to New York. I will show up to one of your speeches and ask "why at the state level? why not at the county level or town level?"

Perhaps you would care to do a little historical research on your own as to why states control this function of government rather than asking. There is a lot of information out there on why certain laws sit at certain levels of the government.

I would suggest first studying the Declaration of Independence, followed by the Constitution, followed by the Federalist Papers.

I'll give you a quick breakdown. When the country of USA was first founded, it was founded by 13 individual governments (countries used to be called "states". A good way to understand this is search European states, you will see what you know today as "countries" listed) that each had their own sitting government and set of laws. In order to break free of Britain's tyranny, the states knew that either they had to work together or they would fail in their seemingly unwinnable war against one of the, if not the, world power at the time. These "states" or "countries" came together and put together one common government to easily regulate currency & commerce between them and became the "United States". As time grew on, more "states" joined. The concept of "state" has changed over time, now someone thinks of Nebraska rather than Albania when the word "state" is mentioned.

Anyway, when these states put a federal government system together, it was decided that anything not handled by the federal government was naturally handed down to the states to control. Laws and regulations on marriage is one of these items. The federal government recognized all state marriages as marriages until 1996 when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, which defined marriage as only one man, one woman. So even if a state such as Massachussets allows gay marriage, it is not recognized by the federal government. This is where the real issue with gay marriage should lie, the federal government in my opinion should repeal DOMA and allow states to make these decisions and the federal government should recognize it if the states recognize it.

While I don't agree with gay marriage, if it is passed by a state according to that state's constitution, I have no complaints with it and feel that the federal government should respect the states rights to decide this matter.

And if a state so chose to pass the control of marriage down to the county level, they could. Many of the states have a big difference in things that they control compared to what they allow the counties to control. Bigger items like marriage are rarely one of these items though.

[GreecePwns]

Historically, that is the answer. I've been begging for someone to give an actual merit to the idea of deciding this issue at the state level over more local levels of government for around 20 pages in this thread and other threads.

[Phatscotty]

Historically, that is the answer. I've been begging for someone to give an actual merit to the idea of deciding this issue at the state level over more local levels of government for around 20 pages in this thread and other threads.

Yet the answer is still the same. Perhaps you have been rejecting the answer exactly as much as you have been begging for it.



The reason it's not at the town level or the country level is because they have jurisdiction over smaller things like local carnivals, 4H meetings. and advertising garage sales.

[GreecePwns]

Because the constitution says so is not a merit. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, as well. Try again.

[Phatscotty]

Because the constitution says so is not a merit. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, as well. Try again.

I just showed you where it grants the states the power. That is the reality. That is the law.

I'm not appealing to anything, just introducing you to the most basic concepts of the US Constitution.

Go ahead and reject reality. It's pretty normal nowadays. I guess you will never learn then.

[patrickaa317]

Historically, that is the answer. I've been begging for someone to give an actual merit to the idea of deciding this issue at the state level over more local levels of government for around 20 pages in this thread and other threads.

Your question was why at the state level and not at the county level. I answered that. Is there a different question you are trying to get answered? Maybe you should try to word it a different way or something.

[thegreekdog]

Historically, that is the answer. I've been begging for someone to give an actual merit to the idea of deciding this issue at the state level over more local levels of government for around 20 pages in this thread and other threads.

Why do you require actual merit? That is rarely required when referring to laws, regulations, or constitutions. Many people will find particular items of law, regulations, or constitutions to be without merit and yet will still obey those things. In any event, if you find that the Constitution is without merit with respect to requiring that states maintain some level of sovereignty, there are avenues to achieve the result you wish to see. For example, an amendment to the Constitution.

To answer your question though, the applicability of a federal law to 50 states, 1 district, and numerous counties, cities, towns, and hamlets is completely ludicrous. Consider, as well, that each member of the house of representatives represents approximately 650,000 people. That's hardly proportional representation. Further, consider that laws that are supported and passed by, for example, South Carolina representatives, is equally applicable to California residents even though all the California representatives may have voted against the bill. So maybe the state governments, which have more proportional representation on the whole, should have more control over laws applicable to their own citizens, rather than less.

[AndyDufresne]

Historically, that is the answer. I've been begging for someone to give an actual merit to the idea of deciding this issue at the state level over more local levels of government for around 20 pages in this thread and other threads.

Why do you require actual merit? That is rarely required when referring to laws, regulations, or constitutions. Many people will find particular items of law, regulations, or constitutions to be without merit and yet will still obey those things. In any event, if you find that the Constitution is without merit with respect to requiring that states maintain some level of sovereignty, there are avenues to achieve the result you wish to see. For example, an amendment to the Constitution.

To answer your question though, the applicability of a federal law to 50 states, 1 district, and numerous counties, cities, towns, and hamlets is completely ludicrous. Consider, as well, that each member of the house of representatives represents approximately 650,000 people. That's hardly proportional representation. Further, consider that laws that are supported and passed by, for example, South Carolina representatives, is equally applicable to California residents even though all the California representatives may have voted against the bill. So maybe the state governments, which have more proportional representation on the whole, should have more control over laws applicable to their own citizens, rather than less.

It is a decent argument, except when it comes to equality of the citizens in a nation where interstate travel and living is norm.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Historically, that is the answer. I've been begging for someone to give an actual merit to the idea of deciding this issue at the state level over more local levels of government for around 20 pages in this thread and other threads.

Why do you require actual merit? That is rarely required when referring to laws, regulations, or constitutions. Many people will find particular items of law, regulations, or constitutions to be without merit and yet will still obey those things. In any event, if you find that the Constitution is without merit with respect to requiring that states maintain some level of sovereignty, there are avenues to achieve the result you wish to see. For example, an amendment to the Constitution.

To answer your question though, the applicability of a federal law to 50 states, 1 district, and numerous counties, cities, towns, and hamlets is completely ludicrous. Consider, as well, that each member of the house of representatives represents approximately 650,000 people. That's hardly proportional representation. Further, consider that laws that are supported and passed by, for example, South Carolina representatives, is equally applicable to California residents even though all the California representatives may have voted against the bill. So maybe the state governments, which have more proportional representation on the whole, should have more control over laws applicable to their own citizens, rather than less.

It is a decent argument, except when it comes to equality of the citizens in a nation where interstate travel and living is norm.


--Andy

Interstate living? Is that when your house straddles state lines?

That's where the equal protection amendment comes in, by the way. Which is why the states rights argument should not apply to gay marriage. In order to get the equal protection clause to not apply to gay marriage, one must remove all federal benefits of marriage first.

[AndyDufresne]

Interstate living over a lifetime. Interstate migration by citizens of the USA is pretty high: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-8.pdf


--Andy

[GreecePwns]

Historically, that is the answer. I've been begging for someone to give an actual merit to the idea of deciding this issue at the state level over more local levels of government for around 20 pages in this thread and other threads.

Why do you require actual merit? That is rarely required when referring to laws, regulations, or constitutions. Many people will find particular items of law, regulations, or constitutions to be without merit and yet will still obey those things. In any event, if you find that the Constitution is without merit with respect to requiring that states maintain some level of sovereignty, there are avenues to achieve the result you wish to see. For example, an amendment to the Constitution.

Laws are not created out of whim, and they are not changed on a whim either. Laws are created because they have merit, and changed because a new law is found to have more merit. For example, the amendment abolishing slavery was found to have more merit than a position of giving states' rights on the issue.

My question is, "what are the costs/benefits of giving states the ability to decide on social issues, and do they outweigh those of giving the same rights to a more local level of government?"

To answer your question though, the applicability of a federal law to 50 states, 1 district, and numerous counties, cities, towns, and hamlets is completely ludicrous. Consider, as well, that each member of the house of representatives represents approximately 650,000 people. That's hardly proportional representation. Further, consider that laws that are supported and passed by, for example, South Carolina representatives, is equally applicable to California residents even though all the California representatives may have voted against the bill. So maybe the state governments, which have more proportional representation on the whole, should have more control over laws applicable to their own citizens, rather than less.

I don't understand this. I'm not arguing for "a federal law to 50 states, 1 district, and numerous counties, cities, towns, and hamlets." I'm arguing the following:

If we are to assume government must be involved in deciding social issues (I don't think it should at any level), it should be done at a level of government as low as possible (town, hamlet, etc.) instead of at the state level, so as to increase the happiness of citizens by decreasing the amount in which morality is imposed on its citizens by a majority. People can simply move to a new town more friendly to their morals, which is easier and more economically feasible than moving to a new state more friendly to their morals (and more worldviews are represented in this system).

Again, maybe I'm reading this part wrong.

[thegreekdog]

Laws are not created out of whim, and they are not changed on a whim either. Laws are created because they have merit, and changed because a new law is found to have more merit. For example, the amendment abolishing slavery was found to have more merit than a position of giving states' rights on the issue.

My question is, "what are the costs/benefits of giving states the ability to decide on social issues, and do they outweigh those of giving the same rights to a more local level of government?"

If we're talking about changing a law or implementing a law, then, yes, they need to be based on merit. I was talking about invalidating a law or, in this case, Constitution, because it has a perceived lack of merit. I assumed this was what you were also talking about. I would further posit that the equal protection clause was a response to the states rights Constitutional inclusion.

I don't understand this. I'm not arguing for "a federal law to 50 states, 1 district, and numerous counties, cities, towns, and hamlets." I'm arguing the following:

If we are to assume government must be involved in deciding social issues (I don't think it should at any level), it should be done at a level of government as low as possible (town, hamlet, etc.) instead of at the state level, so as to increase the happiness of citizens by decreasing the amount in which morality is imposed on its citizens by a majority. People can simply move to a new town more friendly to their morals, which is easier and more economically feasible than moving to a new state more friendly to their morals (and more worldviews are represented in this system).

I did not know this is what you were getting at (local vs. state). I assumed you were going local/state vs. federal.

I also do not think the gay marriage question is a social issue, but many disagree with me on that. I think marriage is the social issue and that the equal protection clause should control with respect to federal regulation of marriage.

In sum, we probably agree on this but I'm probably nitpicking based on a perception I have of you.