http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/061604/new_voteban001.shtml Unfortunately I think that even if the voters say YES the amendment will be challenged as unconstitutional. Louisiana will be the second state in the union to vote on this issue.
This matter should be decided on the November ballot. As it should in Missouri. I'm not sure why the Democratic Party, not individual Democratic voters, are so hell bent on keeping this off the November ballot? I would imagine more people will go to the polls in November instead of September or August. Why not have more people involved in deciding this important issue?
maybe lots of people dont think it is important. maybe they care about issues like the war and national defense and taxes.
Well, its going to cost more to the taxpayers to have a separate election in August or September than just putting it on the same ballot as the November election. I don't understand why the Democratic Party, in Missouri, in particular, fought so hard to keep this off the November ballot and cost the taxpayers more to have a special August ballot? It would seem that it would most likely suppress the vote and cost the taxpayers more to have this special vote and not just do it all in November?
I personally think it's all a waste of tax payer money. It's not a state level issue. These amendments will be challenged as unconstitutional soon as they are passed. Then we'll have to let the Supreme Court decide whether or not gays have equals rights under the constitution and if one state can take away rights that a citizen has in another state.
I wish it was on the ballot in November in all 50 states. Not saying who I think would win, but I think the outcome would be unanimous. Actually, I think the priority should be on banning civil unions, that is the backdoor, no pun intended, scheme by the fruit lobby and their minions in the media. I think marriage is clearly a state issue and just as clearly not a federal issue. Obviously, just the opposite of you.
Just becuase a decision is unanimous doesn't mean that it's right. This is clearly not an issue about "protecting marriage" as much as it is an issue about gays not being allowed to get married. US Constitution Article IV Section2 Clause1 "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Which means all the rights you have in one state you have in all states. If Lousiana does not recognized same sex marriages of Mass. US Constitution Amendment XIV Section1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " You still say that this isn't a Federal issue.
If, this was a federal issue, which it isn't, it would be governed by the full faith and credit clause. Which as you may now, how the full faith and credit is doled out is determined by Congress. You think Congress is going to exercise its power to protect homosexual *marriages*? I don't. I've posted in a prior string about the bastardization necessary to stretch the 14th Amendment to promote homosexual *marriages*. I think the 14th Amendment was about preventing Courts, states and localities from continuing to discriminate first, foremost and only against black folks. You think differently? Finally, think about your quote "Which means all the rights you have in one state you have in all states. If Lousiana does not recognized same sex marriages of Mass.", do you really believe that, or less importantly want that to be the case?
I don't know if Congress would exercise their power to protect homosexuals rights, but they should. Why should homosexuals have any fewer rights than you or I??? Why we're taking away their right to marry why don't take away their right to vote, and own property. I don't like or agree with their life style but I'll fight for their right to live it. :thumb:
