Should states accept same-sex marriage?
- Thread starter jayleew
- Start date
Of course, if you set religion aside, (which is what the state is supposed to do), then it's the ethical thing to do. Homosexuality is no longer considered an abberation, it's here to stay.
The majority of southerners wanted slavery, but it was unethical. The US is not "majority rules" because we have a constitution that protects minority rights.
Yes, the South wanted slavery, and the North wanted slavery. There was controversy, so when enough Southerners died, the North became the majority.spidergoat said:
Laws are put in to effect by majority, and this issue is not yet law. The constitution was made by the majority to ensure justice for all. All states do not recognize same-sex marriages, so the majority will rule in the end and make law. In controversy of interpretation, the majority rules and makes the ammendment. The minority filibuster.
So, the US is a republic governed by the majority. Once laws are in place, you are correct, but the laws can be changed by the majority vote.
I think you are incorrect. The constitution was created by a few influential men, not a majority. They knew the tyranny of the majority, and wrote the constitution to protect minority rights. The supreme court can overturn a law that violates the constitution, even if the majority of Americans support it. Roe vs. Wade is an example, since the right to privacy of your person cannot be overturned by the majority. I happen to think same-sex marriage falls under the same category as civil rights for blacks and voting rights for women.
Um, no, the North won the war, so their idea that Federal Law could supercede State's rights in some cases became the standard.
It may have been created by a few men, but the majority endorsed it! Yes, the tyranny of the majority the constituion protects against (and I endorse that), but it was the majority who put it there and can remove it. There is always civil war that the majority can wage to remove it. Majority has and always will rule. The only way that the majority does not rule, is with a few men with an iron fist. This country is stiall a republic! How can you say otherwise? Maybe we are talking about two different things??spidergoat said:
Define "won the war".spidergoat said:
My definition is that the South's spirit to fight was broken. What destroys morale? Losses and longevity. There was not enough strength left for them to fight. Why would they stop if they did not think they would lose the war inevitably? If they clearly had the majority of soldiers, they would have kept fighting. War is first a numbers game, then experience, then tactics. The majority (North) won the war and slavery was abolished.
<i>"Should states accept same-sex marriages as legal? This debate has gone long enough. Religion aside, what is ethical? If majority decides ethics, then what does the majority say?"<\i>
It seems that when people are given the opportunity to choose, the notion of same-sex marriage falls down and dies. The idea of domestic partners is less of a pill to swallow.
It seems that when people are given the opportunity to choose, the notion of same-sex marriage falls down and dies. The idea of domestic partners is less of a pill to swallow.
"Should states accept same-sex marriages as legal? This debate has gone long enough. Religion aside, what is ethical? If majority decides ethics, then what does the majority say?"
It seems that when people are given the opportunity to choose, the notion of same-sex marriage falls down and dies. The idea of domestic partners is less of a pill to swallow.
It seems that when people are given the opportunity to choose, the notion of same-sex marriage falls down and dies. The idea of domestic partners is less of a pill to swallow.