Comments on: Bob Barr On Gay Marriage

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:22:13 +0000

There is no different system of laws that apply to homosexuals. Case in point – Senator John Edwards is legally married.

By: thomas

thomas — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:08:23 +0000

Marriage should not be in any law, state or federal.
Marriage is religon.
Government should give out licenses to all.
Churches should give out marriages.

By: David

David — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:09:40 +0000

Dave: overheated rhetoric does not help win arguments or change anyone’s mind. This is qualitatively different from apartheid, although a good argument can be made that it is discriminatory. The specific issue in question, however, is not whether it’s discriminatory, but whether it’s an appropriate question for the Federal government in the first place.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:16:54 +0000

DOMA is unconstititional as it is apartheid law.

Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.

Stop gay apartheid.

By: aaglaas

aaglaas — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:51:13 +0000

Here are all the arguments, both for and against, gay marriage. You decide:

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Aaron%27s+Story

By: Cornet Mustich

Cornet Mustich — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:43:12 +0000

Kudos to CT and MA. (And shame on CA)

Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
Washington CT USA

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:24:05 +0000

Roy, I tend to agree with you. States have proven throughout our country’s history to be especially sensitive to those political and social viewpoints of the majority, too often at the expense of some minority. While states, no doubt, should have a certain degree of autonomy. However, if I were to dredge up all of the wrong-doings in the name of state autonomy it wouldn’t be pretty. States can and do routinely use their so-called “right” to oppress, cajole and persecute its own citizens in the name of “what’s best for the many rather than the few.” While on it’s face that sounds rational, in practice it has borne many injustices. Some of them unforgivable. While I agree states can and should govern themselves as they see fit, there are clearly times when the government should amend burdensome, poorly fashioned law. Law has an enormous effect on every citizens life. It has the potential to protect or abuse. That being the case, poorly conceived or constitutionally backward legislation, in my opinion, should be overturned. I for example believe strongly in a woman’s right to an abortion. This is a perfect example in which states’ rights can interfere with a person’s individual rights as a human being. But depending on what state you live in this issue varies significantly. If you live in a southern state for example is a lot different if you live in New England or the West coast. It’s a slippery slope when you decide states should have “total” autonomy. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

By: Roy

Roy — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:54:22 +0000

What else should be left to the states? Whether African-Americans should be allowed to vote? Whether women can be airline pilots? And what about full faith and credit? Will Kansas be allowed to reject New York’s driver licenses?