North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[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.

[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?

Just repeating the question for PS: Who's paying you for all this?

[Woodruff]

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?

Just repeating the question for PS: Who's paying you for all this?

Phatscotty has declared this thread to be icky and he will not participate - you'll have to try in his approved thread.

[patrickaa317]

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.

Or the federal government could recognize marriage as the states do. Similar to how it was before Clinton signed DOMA into law where the states could decide and the fed recognized it regardless of whether they agreed with it or not.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Or the federal government could recognize marriage as the states do. Similar to how it was before Clinton signed DOMA into law where the states could decide and the fed recognized it regardless of whether they agreed with it or not.

Uh... the real precedent was set much earlier than that, in particular by the Love vs the state ruling that did away with laws prohibiting interracial marriages.

There are 2 questions here. One is whether homosexuality deserves protection. That is essentially a social/moral question. It USED to be thought that homosexuality presented a huge social evil.. promoted child rape, etc. Most intelligent people admit that is just wrong. When they say there is a "wrong", it is something like "pulls people away from God" or "represents immorality" in and of itself. Those are not really social arguments, but religious ones. That is, there is no link between pedophilia and adult homosexuality, nor between homosexuality and any other crime pattern, (though abberations exist within the homosexual community, of course). That religious argument is utterly invalid in this context because, In our country, the law is supposed to protect ALL religious beliefs. People using that argument here wish to claim that they have a right to decide what other people do, not just what they themselves do. The traditional standard is that you can practice how you wish, but are not allowed to tell others how to practice their religion, so any religious argument against homosexuality is plain illegal.

The other question is whether a government entity can provide benefits to one group of people and not to another, regardless of why. That is a legal question, and the social/religious impacts are irrelevant unless you ALSO want to do away with the right to free practice of religion by all individuals. Legally, then, unless you look to religion, there is no ground for refusing to honor the marriages of homosexuals just as we do for heterosexuals.

[PLAYER57832]

In order to get the equal protection clause to not apply to gay marriage, one must remove all federal benefits of marriage first.

Exactly.

[beezer]

In the old days a thread like this would have inspired a minimum of 60 pages. Nothing will ever top the Logic Dictates thread, but this one has actually provoked some good posts.

[Phatscotty]

In the old days a thread like this would have inspired a minimum of 60 pages. Nothing will ever top the Logic Dictates thread, but this one has actually provoked some good posts.

It might have hit 60 if it was a more honest thread

[beezer]

In the old days a thread like this would have inspired a minimum of 60 pages. Nothing will ever top the Logic Dictates thread, but this one has actually provoked some good posts.

It might have hit 60 if it was a more honest thread

Yeah, I noticed the way the OP was worded. I guess I was just nostalgic for the old days when you'd have 20 pages worth of people simply giving their first post on a subject before the debate would really get going.

[Symmetry]

In the old days a thread like this would have inspired a minimum of 60 pages. Nothing will ever top the Logic Dictates thread, but this one has actually provoked some good posts.

It might have hit 60 if it was a more honest thread

Yeah, I noticed the way the OP was worded. I guess I was just nostalgic for the old days when you'd have 20 pages worth of people simply giving their first post on a subject before the debate would really get going.

How would you have worded it?

Following North Carolina's banning of not only gay marriage, but civil unions for gay folk, where do posters stand?

Some folk seem to think that this was a gay marriage issue alone.

[Woodruff]

In the old days a thread like this would have inspired a minimum of 60 pages. Nothing will ever top the Logic Dictates thread, but this one has actually provoked some good posts.

It might have hit 60 if it was a more honest thread

Yeah, I noticed the way the OP was worded. I guess I was just nostalgic for the old days when you'd have 20 pages worth of people simply giving their first post on a subject before the debate would really get going.

How would you have worded it?

Following North Carolina's banning of not only gay marriage, but civil unions for gay folk, where do posters stand?

Some folk seem to think that this was a gay marriage issue alone.

I believe the complaint is about the subject, rather than the post itself. I have no problem with the original post, but the subject is a bit pimpdaveesque.

[Symmetry]

In the old days a thread like this would have inspired a minimum of 60 pages. Nothing will ever top the Logic Dictates thread, but this one has actually provoked some good posts.

It might have hit 60 if it was a more honest thread

Yeah, I noticed the way the OP was worded. I guess I was just nostalgic for the old days when you'd have 20 pages worth of people simply giving their first post on a subject before the debate would really get going.

How would you have worded it?

Following North Carolina's banning of not only gay marriage, but civil unions for gay folk, where do posters stand?

Some folk seem to think that this was a gay marriage issue alone.

I believe the complaint is about the subject, rather than the post itself. I have no problem with the original post, but the subject is a bit pimpdaveesque.

The subject is North Carolina's banning of any form of legal recognition for gay relationships. The OP explains, the poll allows differing views, the posts (although a few trolls have tried to suggest that the NC decision was about gay marriage) have mostly been interesting reading.

I'll make changes for the trolls if they stop pretending this is a marriage issue.

[beezer]

How would you have worded it?

Thoughts or Opinions about North Carolina's Amendment 1
North Carolina Amendment 1

Probably something similar to that. By making the title of the thread "no gays allowed" makes it seem like they're banning gays from entering or living in the state. The poll is also worded to reflect that the premise of those who support homosexuals marrying is correct, and that those who would disagree are automatically wrong in opposing it.

I don't really have a problem with the thread discussion involving more than just the homosexual marriage issue.

[Symmetry]

How would you have worded it?

Thoughts or Opinions about North Carolina's Amendment 1
North Carolina Amendment 1

Probably something similar to that. By making the title of the thread "no gays allowed" makes it seem like they're banning gays from entering or living in the state. The poll is also worded to reflect that the premise of those who support homosexuals marrying is correct, and that those who would disagree are automatically wrong in opposing it.

I don't really have a problem with the thread discussion involving more than just the homosexual marriage issue.

How would you have worded the poll?

[Woodruff]

How would you have worded it?

Thoughts or Opinions about North Carolina's Amendment 1
North Carolina Amendment 1

Probably something similar to that. By making the title of the thread "no gays allowed" makes it seem like they're banning gays from entering or living in the state. The poll is also worded to reflect that the premise of those who support homosexuals marrying is correct, and that those who would disagree are automatically wrong in opposing it.

I thought the poll was well-worded and very balanced, but I agree about the Subject of the thread.