What do you think should be left up to the States?

[ASUMountaineer]

Of course you can, marriage is not an inalienable right--gay or straight.

TBD, so blow me, Mort.

Truthiness: It can hurt.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

TBD, so blow me, Mort.

Truthiness: It can hurt.

just because it's not a constitutionally enumerated right does not mean that marriage laws are not bound by the Constitutions equal protection strictures...

[ASUMountaineer]

Truthiness: It can hurt.

just because it's not a constitutionally enumerated right does not mean that marriage laws are not bound by the Constitutions equal protection strictures...

It depends on your interpretation, as most things. I don't believe "government sanctioned marriage" is an inalienable right that is guaranteed, or protected, by the US Constitution. You can, and probably do, disagree. That's fine, but I will never believe that my wife and I DESERVED to have a government sanctioned marriage. I'm still waiting to hear a valid reason for government to be involved in any marriage.

I find it funny liberals want government OUT of the bedrooms, but IN marriage. The only reason for that I can figure is that there isn't much going on IN the bedroom once you're married.

[Cap'n Cat]

just because it's not a constitutionally enumerated right does not mean that marriage laws are not bound by the Constitutions equal protection strictures...

It depends on your interpretation, as most things. I don't believe "government sanctioned marriage" is an inalienable right that is guaranteed, or protected, by the US Constitution. You can, and probably do, disagree. That's fine, but I will never believe that my wife and I DESERVED to have a government sanctioned marriage. I'm still waiting to hear a valid reason for government to be involved in any marriage.

I find it funny liberals want government OUT of the bedrooms, but IN marriage. The only reason for that I can figure is that there isn't much going on IN the bedroom once you're married.

Your opinion: means nothing.


Your ass, bitch. Gov't's involved in it now so them's the cards we're dealt, ConkBoy.

[ASUMountaineer]

It depends on your interpretation, as most things. I don't believe "government sanctioned marriage" is an inalienable right that is guaranteed, or protected, by the US Constitution. You can, and probably do, disagree. That's fine, but I will never believe that my wife and I DESERVED to have a government sanctioned marriage. I'm still waiting to hear a valid reason for government to be involved in any marriage.

I find it funny liberals want government OUT of the bedrooms, but IN marriage. The only reason for that I can figure is that there isn't much going on IN the bedroom once you're married.

Your opinion: means nothing.


Your ass, bitch. Gov't's involved in it now so them's the cards we're dealt, ConkBoy.

Listen Donk bitch, our opinions have something in common then. Just because the government's involved doesn't mean it should be and we shouldn't correct it. Still waiting for proof marriage is an INALIENABLE RIGHT, GUARANTEED by the Constitution.

Your ass, numbnuts.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

just because it's not a constitutionally enumerated right does not mean that marriage laws are not bound by the Constitutions equal protection strictures...

It depends on your interpretation, as most things. I don't believe "government sanctioned marriage" is an inalienable right that is guaranteed, or protected, by the US Constitution. You can, and probably do, disagree. That's fine, but I will never believe that my wife and I DESERVED to have a government sanctioned marriage. I'm still waiting to hear a valid reason for government to be involved in any marriage.

I find it funny liberals want government OUT of the bedrooms, but IN marriage. The only reason for that I can figure is that there isn't much going on IN the bedroom once you're married.

not what i was getting at.

government being involved in marriage really is virtually immaterial to my point. my point is... the constitution provides for equal protection under the law regardless of where you live this applies to more than just marriage.

i personally believe in civil unions for all who want them and churches to be left alone to decide on marriages

[Cap'n Cat]

Your opinion: means nothing.


Your ass, bitch. Gov't's involved in it now so them's the cards we're dealt, ConkBoy.

Listen Donk bitch, our opinions have something in common then. Just because the government's involved doesn't mean it should be and we shouldn't correct it. Still waiting for proof marriage is an INALIENABLE RIGHT, GUARANTEED by the Constitution.

Your ass, numbnuts.

Tourette's Poster Child,
Never said it was! IF IT BECOMES SO, your state's rights and responsiblilities shit is whacked, like it was to begin with! You're pissin' up a rope, son, but I'm the dumbass for even giving you the time of day in this thread.............grind your government in marriage axe somewhere else and not use it for deflection here.


If you still don't understand, reread TT's post.

Fvck!

[ASUMountaineer]

It depends on your interpretation, as most things. I don't believe "government sanctioned marriage" is an inalienable right that is guaranteed, or protected, by the US Constitution. You can, and probably do, disagree. That's fine, but I will never believe that my wife and I DESERVED to have a government sanctioned marriage. I'm still waiting to hear a valid reason for government to be involved in any marriage.

I find it funny liberals want government OUT of the bedrooms, but IN marriage. The only reason for that I can figure is that there isn't much going on IN the bedroom once you're married.

not what i was getting at.

government being involved in marriage really is virtually immaterial to my point. my point is... the constitution provides for equal protection under the law regardless of where you live this applies to more than just marriage.

i personally believe in civil unions for all who want them and churches to be left alone to decide on marriages

I agree with what you believe. My point is, government being involved in marriage is why it's a 14th amendment issue, otherwise, it wouldn't be a question (or shouldn't be). If marriage is defined as an inalienable right, it has to be equal. If not, then the government should get out of the marriage business.

That is how it relates, at least in my mind, to your points. In other words, equal protection should not extend to marriage, it's not a right, it's a privilege. Anyone should be able to get married, government shouldn't decide who can and can't.

[Cap'n Cat]

You're living in a dream world, Mounted. Deal with reality if you're gonna argue.

[ASUMountaineer]

Listen Donk bitch, our opinions have something in common then. Just because the government's involved doesn't mean it should be and we shouldn't correct it. Still waiting for proof marriage is an INALIENABLE RIGHT, GUARANTEED by the Constitution.

Your ass, numbnuts.

Tourette's Poster Child,
Never said it was! IF IT BECOMES SO, your state's rights and responsiblilities **** is whacked, like it was to begin with! You're pissin' up a rope, son, but I'm the dumbass for even giving you the time of day in this thread.............grind your government in marriage axe somewhere else and not use it for deflection here.


If you still don't understand, reread TT's post.

Fvck!

No deflection here fat ass. I didn't mention state's right genius. You've got me confused with some other conk you have a crush on. I don't think ANY government should be involved in marriage. Not even the states. Marriage came up and I responded. Get over it.

[bobbythekidd]

hud - federal housing programs (and freddie and fannie) were a HUGE part of putting millions of Americans in their own homes... a step that was HUGE for the economy and the stability of communities (yes, there were problems during this decade... Bush's "ownership society" initiative seems to be at the root of it) all in all the initiatives are good for the country and economy.

Interesting POV. Factcheck.org blames; "The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families."

But blames Bush for; "failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market."

[ASUMountaineer]

You're living in a dream world, Mounted. Deal with reality if you're gonna argue.

Please, tell me what is the reality? I understand government will never get out of marriage--hence, why I agree with TT's position. What else?

[Cap'n Cat]

You're living in a dream world, Mounted. Deal with reality if you're gonna argue.

Please, tell me what is the reality? I understand government will never get out of marriage--hence, why I agree with TT's position. What else?

That's the reality, dung breath. I agreed, too. Now go fvck yourself.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

hud - federal housing programs (and freddie and fannie) were a HUGE part of putting millions of Americans in their own homes... a step that was HUGE for the economy and the stability of communities (yes, there were problems during this decade... Bush's "ownership society" initiative seems to be at the root of it) all in all the initiatives are good for the country and economy.

Interesting POV. Factcheck.org blames; "The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families."

But blames Bush for; "failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market."

IMO clinton's plan... while flawed... would have worked if the bush administration had properly conducted oversight.

[ASUMountaineer]

Please, tell me what is the reality? I understand government will never get out of marriage--hence, why I agree with TT's position. What else?

That's the reality, dung breath. I agreed, too. Now go fvck yourself.

Awww, little Cappy mad at the big bad conk? Good deal. We agreed, because it's the best solution to a problem that can't be completely corrected.

[UNI88]

Interesting POV. Factcheck.org blames; "The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families."

But blames Bush for; "failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market."

IMO clinton's plan... while flawed... would have worked if the bush administration had properly conducted oversight.

And Franklin Raines and Democrats in Congress (Barney Frank et al) have no responsibility for the mess?

[Col Hogan]

IMO clinton's plan... while flawed... would have worked if the bush administration had properly conducted oversight.

And Franklin Raines and Democrats in Congress (Barney Frank et al) have no responsibility for the mess?

Man, they ran away from that question.....

[Ibanez]

Interesting views. So we're agreed, the queers should marry and the gov't should shrink?



It's a nice dream.

[JMU DJ]

Interesting views. So we're agreed, the queers should marry and the gov't should shrink?



It's a nice dream.

Things that will happen in our life time... Same Sex Marriage

Things that won't happen in our life time... Gov't shrinks (unless CitDog rallies the troops and Charleston secedes)

[Ibanez]

Interesting views. So we're agreed, the queers should marry and the gov't should shrink?



It's a nice dream.

Things that will happen in our life time... Same Sex Marriage

Things that won't happen in our life time... Gov't shrinks (unless CitDog rallies the troops and Charleston secedes)

Citdog can't rally his own troops ( i'm talking about his Erectile Dysfunction)

[TwinTownBisonFan]

IMO clinton's plan... while flawed... would have worked if the bush administration had properly conducted oversight.

And Franklin Raines and Democrats in Congress (Barney Frank et al) have no responsibility for the mess?

you can only conduct so much oversight from the legislative branch... and.. frankly the entire committee largely fell down but the HUD secretary is the executive branch... his job to oversee that sort of thing... congress didn't hold his feet to the fire to make him do his job, but at the end of the day the Bush HUD dept is where the responsibility for enforcing the regs lay at the time.

[UNI88]

And Franklin Raines and Democrats in Congress (Barney Frank et al) have no responsibility for the mess?

you can only conduct so much oversight from the legislative branch... and.. frankly the entire committee largely fell down but the HUD secretary is the executive branch... his job to oversee that sort of thing... congress didn't hold his feet to the fire to make him do his job, but at the end of the day the Bush HUD dept is where the responsibility for enforcing the regs lay at the time.

I agree that the Bush Administration bears much but not all of the responsibility. Congress refuses to recognize its own role in the crisis and flagellates corporate CEOs for greed and avarice while refusing to hold Franklin Raines to the same standards. Too much hypocrisy and too little real leadership!

[BDKJMU]

Bingo. Half of what the Feds do know should be left up to the states (and much of it is duplicated anyway). You could get rid of a bunch of fed departments in our grossly overbloated fed bureacracy, starting with:
-Education: a local and state matter
-HUD: a local and state matter. Look what that has brought us- the collassal disasters known as Fannie and Freddie
-Labor (ex every state should be able to set their own minimum wage).
-Agriculture: Ag inspectors have already been put under Homeland, and National Forests Could be put under Interior, and most if not all states have their own depts of agriculture.

As far as gay marriage, let the states decide. States' rights issue. I don't have a problem with a state establishing it through their elected reps, but I do have a problem with activist judges deciding it by judicial fiat.

Same with abortion. Fed govt doesn't have any business telling a woman she can or can't have an abortion. Why I'm against Roe v Wade, and why a person could be pro abortion/choice and still be against Roe v Wade. States' rights issue.

problematic however... because the 10th amendment isn't the final word on it... the 14th amendment changes many things, by extending federally ensured rights to the states.

banning gay marriage in alabama, while it is legal in maine, inherently creates problems of equality.

as for the more subjective -

education - without federal standards, or the application of equal rights laws... blacks in Mississippi would possibly still be in "separate but equal" schools...

labor - a federal minimum wage does some to inhibit states "rushing to the bottom" to create third world economies in their states

hud - federal housing programs (and freddie and fannie) were a HUGE part of putting millions of Americans in their own homes... a step that was HUGE for the economy and the stability of communities (yes, there were problems during this decade... Bush's "ownership society" initiative seems to be at the root of it) all in all the initiatives are good for the country and economy.

agriculture - federal food safety and agriculture guidelines ensure that there is a minimum standard ensured to all citizens regardless of where they live.

"banning gay marriage in alabama, while it is legal in maine, inherently creates problems of equality." A marriage is a license. Using that logic, say NJ (very anti gun) not honoring a concealed carry license issued in Alabama then inherantly creates problems of inequality.

As far as education, decisions on local schools should be left to the local school boards, and to a lesser extent, the state govts. Bureaucrats in DC shouldn't be able to tell your local school board how to run your local public schools. Who do you want making decisions for your local public school, your local school board or DC bureaucrats?

Yes, Fannie and Freddie were a huge part of putting millions of Americans in their own homes...who couldn't afford the home they bought, or shouldn't have been buying any home period. Mortgage companies were willing to give subprime loans, liar loans, no doc loans etc to millions of people with low credit and sketchy job history who couldn't afford them, knowing that they could immediately sell these loans to Fannie & Freddie who would package them into mortgage back securities and peddle them like crack cocaine to an addicted Wall Street. If there was no Fannie and Freddie, sure millions less would own homes, many of who bought more homes than they could afford or shouldn't have been able to buy at all and remained renters. We wouldn't have had the housing bubble, and resulting subprime and foreclosure mess.

As far as agriculture , yes federal food safety and agriculture guidelines ensure that there is a minimum standard ensured to all citizens regardless of where they live. But as I already mention, ag inspectors are now under Homeland Security as part of CBP.

My point remains that our fed govt is extremely overbloated, much of it at the expense of the states.

[Chizzang]

I actually enjoy how these threads devolve - disintegrate & decompose into an elaborate pissing match...

[Wedgebuster]

Predator control.