Should individual states be allowed to discriminate against individuals or groups?

Question

Isn't it a cop out for a presidential candidate to say the states should be the ones to determine whether or not to recognize gay marriages? If we allow states to discriminate where does it end? Do these same candidates believe states should be allowed to decide whether or not they wish to recognize voting rights for some racial groups, or inter-racial marriages?

Should not all rights be protected regardless of where a citizent lives?

For those who believe LGBT citizens have equal rights, explain why they can be fired for their sexuality in some states, and from the military.

Answer 1

no, once enough states come around a federal case would allow for overiding the state laws. This is how Roe v Wade worked and knocking down the sodomy laws in 2003.

yes it is a cop out which means "I do not want to risk my political clout for your cause"

this was used by some during the desegregation and black rights issues in the 60's. it was a convenient way for them to turn their back on blacks.

it was wrong then and it is wrong now.

when I am voting for president I am voting for character. I want someone sitting as president that has a core set of values and make decisions based on those values. I do not want someone taking polls and asking lobbyists for their opinions and I certainly do not want someone that will sway their opinion with the weather

♂♂

Answer 2

Doesn't matter. The Federal Supreme Court rulled in Santa Fe vs. Doe that basic rights are not votable. Which would make any law illegal.

I do see the point though..more to do with the seperation of Federal vs State authority than the rights issue and in that I fully support not letting the Federal govt poach any more of the State's backyard.

The States themselves should be able to act like thinking and decent people...if they cannot we should throw them out of the civilized world.

Fun fact..a lot of the laws currently used to block gay marriage were on books to prevent inter-racial marriage...so those who say "marriage has always been X" are full of because marriage has been evolving to catch up with social justice since the civil rights movement began.

Thunderscream> good point but Civil War was about a lot of things..economic, civil, govt rights, cultural differences..was not about State's rights any more than it was about slavery......that and the fact that South attacked North after Lincoln said he would not stand in their way to form their own country.

Mr Jello> gotta say I disagree. Rich, poor, fat,skinny, smart, dumb, young, old, white, black, asian, every single person is allowed to get married..but not gays..that is discrimination..when something is open to everyone but 1 group


HonestJoe> Homosexuality is not a choice? It is genetic..hence they are born that way. There are cases of 1 in 100,000 million where a gay chooses to be straight or straight chooses to be gay but that is exception to rule..not the rule. Check your facts because you have it wrong. I didn't Choose to like women..I just do because that is what I biologically react to as a man..I didn't sit down and think about it and decide "Yeah I like chicks"

Answer 3

NO individual state laws are there to have a multi layered system of laws some things are covered under state laws like drinking age and helmet laws but i forgot nobody like wants state laws cough Civil War State laws vs Federal laws oh oh i forgot the new history is the Civil War was about slavery not state rights
if you hand the federal goverment too much they will take everything

Answer 4

"When the BNP get in power..." bulls**t. It'll never happen even when we eventually switch to a system of proportional representation. I'm frankly surprised that someone calling themselves "UK + EU = Paradise" would make any such positive remarks about the BNP, a bunch of fascists who are very much opposed to the European Union? "Many organisations are allowed to ban Muslims, Jews and Christians from joining" - some examples would be nice, or is that a lie as well? "Catholics...are not allowed in the House of Commons". More bulls**t. There are a number of Catholics in the House of Commons, notably Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, although she's retiring at the upcoming election) and I think Charles Kennedy (former Lib Dem leader). "Here in the UK...we have atheist advertisements; religious ones are banned". You are clearly talking out of your own a** - the whole atheist bus campaign was inspired by religious advertisements and was quickly followed by a "There is a god" campaign. Have to agree about discrimination in the US TO A POINT though - I believe eight or nine states ban "people who deny the existence of the supreme being" (ie: atheists) from running for public office (surely that's unconstitutional?). Wonder what would happen if an agnostic attempted to run, after all they don't DENY his/her/their/its existence... :-) But overall, you clearly don't know what you're talking about

Answer 5

States' rights is important, but some rights need to be curtailed if they are discriminatory. With segregation, the Federal government had to come in and outlaw it, much like they will have to domake states allow gay marriages in thew US by making it a Federal law

Answer 6

Depends on what you consider an individual or group being discriminated against.

If people in that state believe that gay marriages should or should not be legal, then who am I to complain. If I don't like it I can always move to another state.

Would you be happy if the candidates states they believe that there should be a national law against same sex marriages. I doubt it.

And I don't understand where the connection is between race and homosexuality is. People don't choose to be black, white, green or whatever. But homosexuality is a choice.

Answer 7

It's not discrimination if you don't get what you want. The laws apply equally to straights and gays, there is no discrimination.

To say that states discriminate because gays can't marry is like saying states discriminate because the rich can't collect welfare. Why would someone deny a person welfare just because of what they earn? Everyone should be treated equally.

Answer 8

I don't think the issue could be separated via states, considering how many marriage rights the federal government issues e.x. extending legal status to the non-legal partner.

Answer 9

I fully agree, however, it is best for a candidate, takes the heat off of him, because he can either say
a. I support it but the the states need to make their own decisions or
b. I don't support it but if the states do, it's up to them.

Answer 10

Discrimination is unconstitutional, thus- illegal. We need a federal enforcement...