Gov. Moonbeam Signs ANOTHER Ridiculous Law

[Captdon]

If the citizens of that state elect politicians/representatives into positions of power that enact these measures and are still re-elected after the fact, which basically means it’s acceptable, then that seems like normal, acceptable government to me. On one hand a person can’t call for more states rights and then decry a state for going a different route from another.

We have rights that a state can't take away. The people can't either.Free speech is the problem. No one is committing fraud so the government has no right to do this. Where does the state have the right to decide what you list first on a menu? There is no health issue here no matter how far you stretch it.

We don't vote on rights.

[Standing Wolf]

We have rights that a state can't take away. The people can't either.Free speech is the problem. No one is committing fraud so the government has no right to do this. Where does the state have the right to decide what you list first on a menu? There is no health issue here no matter how far you stretch it.

We don't vote on rights.

Tell it to all the good conservatives who decry the Supreme Court's decision on laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. We are absolutely in agreement that an American citizen's rights under the Constitution should not be subject to state legislatures or majority votes. Let that policy be applied to all rights - not just the ones we approve of.

[stjames1_53]

Tell it to all the good conservatives who decry the Supreme Court's decision on laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. We are absolutely in agreement that an American citizen's rights under the Constitution should not be subject to state legislatures or majority votes. Let that policy be applied to all rights - not just the ones we approve of.

marriage is not mentioned at all in CONUS

[Standing Wolf]

marriage is not mentioned at all in CONUS

As has been explained to you any number of times - the equal protection of the law is, however. Driver's licenses aren't mentioned in the Constitution, either; that doesn't mean that a state can only permit Protestants or men or right-handed people to obtain one.

[stjames1_53]

As has been explained to you any number of times - the equal protection of the law is, however. Driver's licenses aren't mentioned in the Constitution, either; that doesn't mean that a state can only permit Protestants or men or right-handed people to obtain one.

that is because like marriage, it is upon the state. and not all operators license's are equal..........

[Tahuyaman]

If the citizens of that state elect politicians/representatives into positions of power that enact these measures and are still re-elected after the fact, which basically means it’s acceptable, then that seems like normal, acceptable government to me. On one hand a person can’t call for more states rights and then decry a state for going a different route from another.

So, government overreach is no big deal if a majority don't object or it can be cloaked in states rights?

[Standing Wolf]

that is because like marriage, it is upon the state. and not all operators license's are equal..........

The state can deny you a driver's license if there exists a compelling public interest in its doing so. If you're too young, or you're blind, or what-have-you. The reason for denying you the opportunity to apply for and receive a driver's license must relate, in a logical way, to the act of driving. No one has ever come up with what a compelling public interest in denying participation in the public institution of civil marriage to same-sex couples might be. Tradition, religious doctrines and societal prejudice don't cut it. Equal treatment means equal treatment - whether we're talking about driving, marriage or virtually anything else regulated or overseen by some branch of government. That isn't the government "shoving things down the people's throats", as some people characterize it; it's individual citizens resisting government efforts to treat them differently for no good reason and deny them the right to equal treatment recognized by the U.S. Constitution.

[Don29palms]

Same sex mariage is not equal treatment is above equal treatment based on sexual preference. Everybody had the same exact rights before the SCOTUS got involved in something that isn't their concern.

[donttread]

Think of all the menus that have to be redrafted and printed because Jerry is a Democrat. Not a problem. Space aliens will pay for it.

No, no the nanny state should pay. Especially those voters who approve

[Standing Wolf]

Same sex mariage is not equal treatment is above equal treatment based on sexual preference. Everybody had the same exact rights before the SCOTUS got involved in something that isn't their concern.

If ONLY same-sex couples were able to lawfully marry, you might have a different opinion in the matter of how much "equal treatment" was being afforded - to you.