Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[d_r]

1. people should not be voting

on other people's civil rights. Period.

[hrmjustin]

2. Civil rights should never be up to the people's vote IMHO.

[HockeyMom]

3. Problem with leaving it to the states

is that people just don't stay in the states where there is Marriage Equality. People move, and travel around for business and vacation. What happens then? That is precisely what happened with interracial marriage. Married in one state, but not married in another.

That is the type of case, like Loving v. Viriginia, which will be have to makes it's way to the SC.

[William769]

20. And your ok with this? Inquiring minds want to know!

Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Also equating this to the abortion is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of (your talking apples &organges).

Here's something to ponder, lets go back to the civil rights movement and let the people decide not the courts (see how long it would have taken to give African Americans the rights they should have already had.

This article in nothing but pure unadulterated BULLSHIT!

How about we take your rights away from you & let the people decide when you should get them. See how you like it.

[Downwinder]

4. The Constitution and the Courts are there

to protect minority rights.

[dsc]

5. I don't think it is wise to do that with abortion but for marriage it is utterly unworkable

Abortion is a vastly different thing than marriage. If Ohio bans abortion tomorrow, those Ohioans who want an abortion can go to PA or MI or NY. They don't become pregnant again by crossing the state line. Marriage is the exact opposite. If OH bans marriage equality, then the only way to be married is to move to a state that permits marriage equality. If the married person goes back to Ohio they do become unmarried again, and stay that way as long as they stay in Ohio. Courts are there to uphold the rights of minorities. If they can't or won't do that, then they are literally pointless.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

6. No thanks. North Carolina is a perfect example as to why "the People" should not decide.

That website looks like something I designed back in the '90s in a beginning HTML class. Yikes.

[Occulus]

11. Blue text on a black background.

I didn't know GeoShitties websites were still around. Didn't they take their servers down?

[justiceischeap]

7. I have to wonder why you're posting this here

Without commentary, it looks like a position you support, which goes against the democratic platform and ultimately against DU standards.

As a lesbian, I must ask, if states and individuals get the right to vote on whom I can marry, do I get the right to vote on opposite-sex couple's potential marriages? It's only fair that I have the right to go to the ballot box and deny any other potential married couple the right to marry.

Comparing marriage equality to anti-choice positions isn't a valid argument either. Abortions are legal. Any woman can get one if she makes that decision for herself. Unless I live in a state that allows marriage equality, I'd have to move to get married (and as someone else pointed out, if I moved to a state that didn't have marriage equality, my marriage would no longer be valid) and I still don't get the federal benefits afforded to opposite-sex married couples.

I feel as though since I'm not equally represented by the law, I really shouldn't have to pay federal taxes and support people who are equally represented.

[GodlessBiker]

10. +1

[JDPriestly]

8. My suggestion for same-sex couples.

Incorporate. Think about it. Lots of advantages.

[JI7]

9. people's rights should not be up for a Vote , especially not a majority to vote

for whether a minority should get rights.

[avebury]

15. The problem is that the people really

don't get to decide. More than half the people are in favor of gay marriage. It is the legislators who are behind the times.

[Zoeisright]

17. Bull. SHIT.

Rights are not for voting on. What is so fucking hard to understand about that? Christ on a crutch, we need more education about the Constitution in this country.

[Iggo]

18. Would it be okay with you if I voted to take away your civil rights?

Because that's what happened here in California. The people voted to take away the civil rights of a minority group. They didn't vote not to extend civil rights to people who didn't yet have them. They voted to take away rights that these people already had. That's what happens when you "let the people decide." Is that the position you're supporting?

[mythology]

19. I think it's probable that the Supreme Court will give a split ruling

overturning Prop 8 in California, but not expanding.

However I think that's the wrong decision both morally and legally. I don't buy the abortion argument. I think we'd have exactly the same whackjobs trying to (and sometimes succeeding) kill abortion providers. Because it's a matter of morality to them, that abortion is murder, they aren't going to change their mind, just because a majority of people disagree with them. Likewise, supports of marriage equality weren't going to give up just because until very recently the majority of the public disagreed with them. Granted there's a difference in that I can't recall any instances of gays bombing straight marriages or churches, but if you believe in something at a moral level, you won't necessarily stop just because others think you're wrong.