Anonymous wrote:"Perfect demonstration of federalism of convenience. You just chose to take power away from the states, not because of what is contained in the constitution but because you think that a farfetched hypothetical outcome is distasteful to you"

Perhaps, yes. I do choose to take away a state's power to limit a fundamental right such as marriage. I believe in this case the individual's right trumps that of the state.

All that said, it doesn't matter. Constitutional precedent re: marriage has already been established under due process clause and the equal protection clause--e.g., the ban on interracial marriage in states was deemed unconstitutional under these clauses.

So your argument is moot.

Anonymous wrote:If there were not federal rights and responsibilities tied to marriage I might go for the states rights argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It's called democracy and more local rule under democracy."

I don't think some things should be held up to a majority vote, such as a woman's right to bodily integrity and a person's human right to marry.

You're right that the last word of the fed may not be the desired outcome, but in most cases, it turns out that the fed overreaches by RESTRICTING rights, such as with slavery, segregation, and DOMA, and eventually such laws are actually found UNconstitutional.

And this usually happens by RE-interpreting the constitution, because of how Constitutional skepticism has been jettisoned.

What about the unborn child's right to bodily integrity? [b]No one's proposing outlawing abortion, so why is this even an issue.

Technically, our constitution was written to restrict or constrain the federal government's authority. Abortion is legal and marriage is a state issue, so what's your beef?

Yes, plenty of people are proposing it, and so it is an issue. Many of the proposals include getting a judge or two in there that might swing towards overturning Roe v Wade. I am not getting into an abortion debate with you, because that would be pointless. But the fact remains that it is not fair to punt it to the states and allow some women to have rights and others not to.

As far as marriage being a state issue. Fine. Consider it from this angle. What if a state decided to outlaw all marriage, straight included. Marriage is too much a burden on insurance companies and employees, etc. You would honestly say, "Oh well, that's a state issue. The majority feel no one should get married, so that's it for the wedding industry in Michigan. State's rights."

I have a hard time believing you would actually go for that.

As for the second bolded part of your quote--and the BIll of Rights was added to ensure everybody's freedom. Nowhere in the constitution is there an out clause restricting rights to the individual (at least those that do not impinge on other's rights).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, you lost my interest with your unrealistic hypothetical. Can't stand such alarmist BS. Just another "dog-whistle" for stupidity.

That's not a constructive comment.

The person you're insulting was making a valid point. Yes, she was using an outlandish hypothetical to demonstrate her point, but she acknowledged the hypothetical was outlandish, and was otherwise respectful and constructive.

I think you owe an apology here.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, you lost my interest with your unrealistic hypothetical. Can't stand such alarmist BS. Just another "dog-whistle" for stupidity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It's called democracy and more local rule under democracy."

I don't think some things should be held up to a majority vote, such as a woman's right to bodily integrity and a person's human right to marry.

You're right that the last word of the fed may not be the desired outcome, but in most cases, it turns out that the fed overreaches by RESTRICTING rights, such as with slavery, segregation, and DOMA, and eventually such laws are actually found UNconstitutional.

And this usually happens by RE-interpreting the constitution, because of how Constitutional skepticism has been jettisoned.

What about the unborn child's right to bodily integrity? [b]No one's proposing outlawing abortion, so why is this even an issue.

Technically, our constitution was written to restrict or constrain the federal government's authority. Abortion is legal and marriage is a state issue, so what's your beef?

Yes, plenty of people are proposing it, and so it is an issue. Many of the proposals include getting a judge or two in there that might swing towards overturning Roe v Wade. I am not getting into an abortion debate with you, because that would be pointless. But the fact remains that it is not fair to punt it to the states and allow some women to have rights and others not to.

As far as marriage being a state issue. Fine. Consider it from this angle. What if a state decided to outlaw all marriage, straight included. Marriage is too much a burden on insurance companies and employees, etc. You would honestly say, "Oh well, that's a state issue. The majority feel no one should get married, so that's it for the wedding industry in Michigan. State's rights."

I have a hard time believing you would actually go for that.

As for the second bolded part of your quote--and the BIll of Rights was added to ensure everybody's freedom. Nowhere in the constitution is there an out clause restricting rights to the individual (at least those that do not impinge on other's rights).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It's called democracy and more local rule under democracy."

I don't think some things should be held up to a majority vote, such as a woman's right to bodily integrity and a person's human right to marry.

You're right that the last word of the fed may not be the desired outcome, but in most cases, it turns out that the fed overreaches by RESTRICTING rights, such as with slavery, segregation, and DOMA, and eventually such laws are actually found UNconstitutional.

And this usually happens by RE-interpreting the constitution, because of how Constitutional skepticism has been jettisoned.

What about the unborn child's right to bodily integrity? [b]No one's proposing outlawing abortion, so why is this even an issue.

Technically, our constitution was written to restrict or constrain the federal government's authority. Abortion is legal and marriage is a state issue, so what's your beef?

Anonymous wrote:"It's called democracy and more local rule under democracy."

I don't think some things should be held up to a majority vote, such as a woman's right to [b]bodily integrity and a person's human right to marry.

You're right that the last word of the fed may not be the desired outcome, but in most cases, it turns out that the fed overreaches by RESTRICTING rights, such as with slavery, segregation, and DOMA, and eventually such laws are actually found UNconstitutional.

And this usually happens by RE-interpreting the constitution, because of how Constitutional skepticism has been jettisoned.

Anonymous wrote:What I wonder about is the fairness of state's rights when it comes to certain issues. It seems supremely unfair that if you happen to be born gay in some states, or need an abortion, that you should be denied certain rights for being born there.

Or you should have crappy access to healthcare because of where in the US you are born

Most people can't just pick up and move to a state that is more accommodating.

I just can't see this have and have not America as a good thing.