This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

[–]cool_but_not_coolModerator on a power-trip[M] [スコア非表示] stickied comment (0子コメント)

Racism/homophobia is allowed on AST.

However, civility and good faith are required.

Locked due to much rule breaking of rules 1 and 2.

[–]minyminaNimble Navigator [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

The 10th Amendment clearly outlines that such issues are for the states to decide not the federal government. Taking that power away from states is a breach of the Constitution.

[–]throwingitanywayNimble Navigator [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Should any marriage be federally recognized? Should there be any financial/tax benefits from that status?

[–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

That's a fair argument. That opens a massive can of worms though.

[–]throwingitanywayNimble Navigator [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

It's not really a fair argument (as related to this specific question) because if you apply that thinking to gay marriage then you absolutely must apply it to heterosexual marriage as well. The constitution does not discuss any marriage, let alone gay marriage specifically. If you want to overturn federal gay marriage rights and let the states decide, then the same must be done for heterosexual marriage, regardless of religious/personal views on the matter.

[–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's what I meant by it opens up a massive can of worms. I just don't want to refute it. I think you could argue that because of precedents set in McCulloch vs. Maryland and Marbury vs. Madison that the federal government does have authority to make such decisions.

[–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I would assume that that person holds primarily libertarian viewpoints and would probably agree with you that heterosexual marriage should be left to the states.

Is that accurate? u/minymina

[–]minyminaNimble Navigator [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Heterosexual marriage is something that is already defined. We are talking about changing the definition to fit both heterosexual and homosexual.

And no, I'm not a libertarian. I hate the government but I'm not retarded to the point of a libertarian.

[–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What definition are you referring to?

[–]minyminaNimble Navigator [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

You really have to ask, how far does is go until the federal government calls the shot on everything? Second amendment, Drug laws, abortion, health, education. All of this is at risk. We can't allow the feds to take one inch of power away from sttaes states.

Further more, liberals forcing things like gay marriage in states like Taxes or Mississippi will not win anybody over.

[–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Fuckkkkkk I've had this argument so many times and I really don't want to do it so I'll just say what I said in another comment. You could easily argue that precedents set in McCulloch vs. Maryland and Marbury vs. Madison that the federal government has the authority to make such decisions.

[–]minyminaNimble Navigator [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It doesn't though. The feds don't have that power. The states do.

[–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Do you know what McCulloch vs. Maryland is? And do you know what Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is?

[–]Boner_HonkfartsUndecided [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In my opinion if it effects federal taxes it becomes a federal issue.

[–]thirdparty4lifeNon-Trump Supporter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

How do you feel about loving vs Virginia? Do you think that was governmental overreach and violated the 10th amendment?