Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Measure 36, which officially bans same-sex marriage, passed in Oregon. ranting

Damn rednecks furious

and yet rednecks allow same family marriage?

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

dude.... every state except for a like massachuttes pased the defintion of marrage as man and woman.

have to admit i didnt find this surprising at all....slightly disappointing from an observers position but nothing special

Yea I heard about that too.Last night.And it is a good thing.Maybe now that bush is president he will do the same pretty soon.GO BUSH!JM

Wow, that makes it okay, suddenly I'm not at all opposed to banning gay marriage, just because most other states banned it too

I was just surprised, I didn't think there was any way it would pass... Everybody around here has "no on 36" signs on their lawns. It was already a law, the scary thing about it is that it's in the constitution now.

It's a terrible thing... It's the same as making interracial marriage illegal. I may be moving soon.

well I'm against banning gay marriage... if you love some one you should be allowed to maryy them. I doesnt matter what race,religion, ar belifes are.. they should be allowed.

I swear to god, and I would know this because I'f from the Pac NW. That Oregon is the most racist state in the union.

Where are you moving to?Darth?Do you live in Orgen or do you just want to move to another country?I was just wondering!JM

We're changing from a democracy, to a republic, to a theocracy, and soon, we will be a facist government. Then Tyranny, then Anarchy, then nothing at all.

Not so much anymore down here in the valley, but you're very right about the rest of it... Used to be the whole state was KKK central.

JM> Obviously I live in Oregon

And I would think it would be equally obvious that I'm talking about moving out of the country

Shoaly Mother of Cod you're an idiot

Keep politcs out of the OTF!

Moving to the GDF...

so the United States isn't ready to accept gay marriage yet...big whoop.

Give it time. I'm sure women weren't given the right to vote the first time they tried either.

Everyone in the civilised world is laughing at America today.

I know I am

Gay marriage is very legal in most Canadian provinces, I know it is in Ontario and Quebec for sure.

America reminds me of the roman republic, once you go up that much, there's no where else to go but down. I have a theory that eventually America will be an equal power, and nothing more.

Go up that much?
We have still have a long way up to go- just to reach the level of many European nations.

I'm so depressed.

I cant take 4 more years of these people!

I meant power and wealth wise, culturally it's actually quite appalling in the states
Not to mention the education system in my opinion is still very lacking

I mean of course terrorism is a great deal and all, but if you wanna fix the problems of the world, start at home first!

I'm shocked to learn that the majority of the people in my country share drastic different beliefs than I do.

And they love Bush and his agenda.

I dont want to live in the US anymore.
I'm coming over to your house!
You're sleeping on the floor from now on babe! winkiss

Honey, no need to tell that to us that live here Don't we know it!

I have three rooms biatch, you can sleep outside though, I don't want nasty tramp stank on my beds! winkiss

Oh, grief...

So Oregon went back to the middle-ages?
(Strikes that state for potential visit for next US-trip).

It's Ohio I would worry about, Omgea. Looks like they will ban civil unions between gays as well. The others have only abolished marriage in name.

If I remember correctly from last night, some other state DID ban civil unions, I believe it was Mississippi. But I may be mistaken as to which state it really was, since I wasn't really paying too close attention to that.

Yeah, here and ten other states...

You could visit WA it's more picturesque more liberal and a better place

Don't bother visiting Oregon regaurdless, there's nothing to do there.

Come to CA, lots to do here, and one of the more likely states to allow gay marriage in teh near future.

Yep. Us Californians are about as good as Americans get.

Hells yea!
(Even though we are all still royaly F***ed)

That's not totally true, like I said, most of the Willamette Valley (especially Eugene and Ashland) is VERY liberal. And Oregon is beautyful

and its right for a single state to force it upon the country? You must realize that if the states wanted to, each one could legally force its citizens to submitt to a single religion. Only the federal government may not proclaim or forward a single religion. So consider for yourself the many possibilities that could be and consider yourself lucky.

Sorry but really we are one of the more likely states to ban it. Californians are known to vote for very liberal things and very conservative things. Come on, three strikes law and execution?

Err, not without major reprocussions. Americans don't have a history of lying down and taking shit from anyone...including it's own government(the revolution ring any bells?).

Besides, if any state did decide to do that, yes, the federal government would step in the way(civil rights movement mean anything to you...?). Opression of any kind isn't tolerated anymore.

So no, the states can't force us to submit to a single religion. If they tried, it'd be outlawed shortly afterwards.

For Christ sake. Get the hell off your throne and quit acting like you're such a genius all the time.

I am fully aware of the horrible things the government could, in theory, do. This does not mean I will sit down and willingly accept injustice. I don't see your logic--just because something much worse could happen doesn't mean that my situation is fine and dandy. And I don't know what you mean by your first statement.

You did not answer the question. And this stuff is average government class knowledge.

You are wrong. The government cannot infringe on the rights of a state. "All powers not deligated to the federal government are deligated to the states" Massachuttes only 100 years ago had a state religion which forced the citizens to pay a church tax.

One of the propositions was limiting the three strikes law, making it far less strict. Last I heard, it was passed. Also, we have Sanfransisco here.

You didn't ask me a question, unless you were referring to your first sentance, which, as I already said, I don't understand.

"Genius," "smartass," put it however you want... All I know is that whenever you get on about politics, you get up on your high-horse. And I know there are others who would agree with me. I wasn't referring to the "factual" things you say in your posts, only to the way you state opinion as fact. Actually, the way you state "fact," too. Not all of which is correct.

No, no I'm not. If this was the case, slavery and segregation would still be in place today.

Or did you miss the part where the Judicial Branch of the government deemed it unconstitutional?

The same would happen with religion. "Seperation of church and state" has more than one meaning.

You're really cocky for someone who was just proved wrong. You really do think you know everything about politics. That's funny.

I agree. You think you're always right RTO.

"Welcome to real life!" - Lonestarr, Spaceballs

Was anyone actually expecting any of these propositions supporting gay rights to pass? The people of this country as a majority is still to bigoted to allow true equal rights to all people. It's funny, because most people don't even know that they are bigoted on this matter. They are all "oh yeah, gays should have equal rights for sure, but they shouldn't be allowed to get married.". Yeah, let me know when you get your head out of your ass, then we'll talk.

"Seperation of church and state" are implied judicial precidents. And state means federal government

Slavery and segregation being abolished was a bending of the rules actually which was allowed mutually by the leaders at the time for obvious reasons, htey were horrible ideals that they fought a CIVIL WAR OVER.

Man, I thought I was the only one.

Not understanding doesn't give you the right to try and go around the point and try to insult me.

Refering to is not an absolute statement. One cannot assume a person assumes the same as you.

I am not on a high horse. I am handing you a pint and an arguement and it is your duty if you wish to challenge those with your own words and ideals that are either equal or overcoming.

Like I said, more than one meaning. I know it means federal government, but the actual word is "state". Which do you think people are going to argue about more?

The Civil War was over which state should go where, and then it turned into a war over slavery. The war wasn't over segregation. Segregation wasn't ended until the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Get your facts straight, please, before acting cocky again.

hysterical exactly that is why california is an inigma in it and of itself.

I wasn't mad at you because I didn't understand the first sentance in your post, I was mad because almost always when it comes to politics, you have to act like a cocky ass and blur the lines between opinion and fact. I have tried for a very long time now to argue with you like a civilized human being, and I am finding it increasingly difficult. Nothing has changed, just my level of tolerence to people who act like you.

What? the civil war was fought over the right to own slaves were you wish and to prove that the federal govenment was more powerfull then the states on matters in the constitution. The state part you are thinking is over the kansas and mississippi borderline think. "bleeding Kansas" ring a bell? Please do not try to lecture me on facts.

You're both a little bit wrong... The civil war was fought over a lot of things. The old "it was fought over slavery" explanation is the one given to first graders, since their level of developmental intelligence is not high enough to handle the full list of events leading up to the conflict. It was much more complicated than that.

Opinion is derived from fact. The two both must be used to prove an arguement and interpret evidence in the favor of the speaker.

Whenever i post, i am either ignored or attacked. Very few people can actually stand at odds and have a conversation it seems.

Bleeding Kansas started the whole ****ing mess! The south wanted a slave state, the north wanted a free state. They started a war over it, then the Union changed the meaning of the war to free the slaves.

That's cute, trying to catch me off guard.

And as the war proved, the federal government is more powerful than the state government, which ultimately proves my original point.

So thanks.

I once thought it was only given to children to, but the more you get into it the clearer it becomes, this was fought at the base slavery and piled upon it, who had power. Andrew Jackson had the first taste of "states rights" when i think south carolina refused to comply with a federal law and he threatened to deploy federal troops to enforce it. Everything else steamed from that moment and the tensions grew and grew.

Slavery was just a underlying excuse really for the south to wage a war. I think they were just confident of a win.

Imo the civil war was really fought over the fact that the north was so much better off than the south, and the only thing that the south really had was their planatations and people were just too lazy to work them themselves.

No matter what your parents have told you, opinion is not the same as fact. This is why people have such differing opinions on different issues. Opinion is a person's interpretation of fact. Hence why two people can look at the same issue and have completely different views on it. You treat fact and opinion as if they are equivalent, which they are not.

I am perfectly capable of having a reasonable discussion. Oh, poor you, people don't like you. Just proves my point about how you need to climb down from your perch and quit being a pompous ass.

I live in the south, and the south is still too lazy to do things for themselves.

Most of them voted for Bush. fear

No, only in the point of slavery which was technically not even a federal power, what made it a federal power ironically was commerce between the states, regulated by the government. The South knew all the loop holes and that was one of the powerfullest until the Abolisionists found the commerce stance. if it were not for that the states could legally without federal control locally have slaves as long as it were confined to the designated territories. So therefore you do not understand fully the point you claimed was yours.

Change your attitude, and maybe that wouldn't happen so often

(That ****ing annoying smilie thing is a MAJOR part in that by the way, one here or there is fine, but you ****ing put a smilie on every sentence it seems)

my parents did not teach me this. Debate class did. Opinion is a major factor in swaying the people who read this, without it one has no stance.

People don't like me because they get frustrated and try to wheel out of the conversation. 98+% of the time.

You remind me of sophists from ancient greece, the first ever "philosophers" if you can call them that.
All they focussed on was winning the argument whether they were right or not

my attitude in anyway has no grounds at all. I always begin with a statement and the response determines my attituded.

And get over the childly annoyance of smilies. if you concentrate on them too much you lose brain cells apparently.

that is the nicest comment ever Philosophes

They believed they were right and used the field of arguementation as an art. EVRYTHING was placed in the hands of skill and nothing more.

Yes, but they based fact on opinions, and their art was misleading, and they were eventually outcasts of society

My original point was that there was no way the state would force religion upon it's civilians, because of the reprocussions. Which you apparently skipped over that part.

Any major reprocussions that did occur, would not go overlooked by the federal government, and they would intervene.

They're called "Amendments" not "concrete-laws-that-can-never-be-changed"

Thank you! Something about it that just seems to say "I'm right, you're a dumbass, why do you even bother trying?" when put in the right context.
.

RTO, you have absolutely NO reason to believe that people don't like you because they are less effective at debating. People don't like you because, for the billionth time, every post you make simply seems to say "I'm right, so shut up and sit down".

I wasn't being serious about the parents thing. Maybe I should use tags around you, since you take everything so seriously. Obviously opinion is valid in debates, but again, for the billionth time, OPINION AND FACT CAN NEVER EVER EVER BE TREATED AS IF THEY ARE EQUAL! Fact will ALWAYS be more valid than opinion. I can say "Bush sucks", but it means nothing unless I back it up with fact. Problem with you is that you never seem to differentiate between fact and your opinions. A lot of what you post is true, but to somebody who knew nothing about the topic, your posts would seem to be 100% factual, since that is how you present the information.

But respected for ALL time. so who won, the forgotten or the remembered?

A state can force what is in its right to regulate. Education was at one point regulated b the states, Marrage is regulated by the states, drivers licences are regulated in part by the states, speed limits are regulated on non-federal highways, if Cali wanted to make a speed limit that said 100+MPH on a short in state only road they could and the Feds CAN"T DO CRAP, for its not in thier right to regulate it unless the road led out of the state.

Amendments are near concrete laws that can almost never be changed. Thats why it takes another amendment to cancel another out.

Being remembered for something attrocious is not worth being remembered at all

If riots broke out in 7 different states that forced religion on their population, the government wouldn't do anything? I don't think you understand what I mean by major reprocussions.

It's fairly easy to amend the constitutuion actually, if the issue is important enough. They won't add a new law making underwear more comfortable, but they would make a law forbidding religious opression. 2/3 of Congress and a National Convention, and we got ourselves a new law! (that's only one of nine(9) ways, 4 of them formal)

Getting away from religious oppression is what this country was founded on.

So why do you not chastise the same to Omega when she speaks? She talks down to everyone no matter what. Am i some how an exception because i oppose the points being made? I assume everyone has an opinion and can contribute to the descusion absolutely, i never tell someone to stop speaking... i ask them to prove why they support an opinion and i give my fact supported by my interpretation for them to consider, thats all i can do.

I take things serious because this post can never be changed, it is forever, as long as the servers are still running and i am trying to, as i assume others are trying to make a point.
Yes, you are absolutely correct on everything you stated on fact.
I assume that everyone who has something to say on a topic should have basic knowlegde on the topic and can interpret and sift out the fact from arguement. if not then.... what are they debating for?

Actually the states would deal with it and if need be request federal troops if the "national guard" (basically state private armies) cannot handle it.

2/3 of congress and 75% of the population in every state. That is near impossible dude and takes a wave of nationalism to cause such an occurance. Especially right now.

You only listed one way, I just said there was 4 formal ways. And it isn't impossible. I hope you realize that religion isn't just some pansy issue, and that you can be certain that if any state tried forcing Christianity on it's population, the rest of the country wouldn't just sit there and do nothing.

You do remember that this country was founded to get away from religious oppression, right? You basically just used a horrible example in your original post. Next time, don't use religion.

There is only one way to pass an amendment unless you bend the rules and make exceptions as the civil rights act did.

It doesn't matter the issue, if a State willed it, it can be done. Do you think everyone was not fighting what happened in massachutes? They and the Feds could DO NOTHING.

There's 4 formal ways, actually.

Yes, it does matter the issue. Freedom of religion is clearly outlined in the Constitution.

Drop it man, you can't win this one. You picked a poor example. Religion just won't work in your favor. Find another issue.

The FIRST Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The church tax wasn't making people worship one religion, nor was it prohibiting the free exercise of the person's religion. The state found a loophole. Now, if the state forced the people to worship one religion, then yes, the federal government would intervene.

>>>Opression isn't tolerated anymore<<< Don't you see that? Even if the rules have to be bent, religious opression wouldn't be accepted. It really doesn't matter what kind of argument you make.

I learned in American Government that there are two ways to make a new amendment, but one of them has only been used for one amendment. The one that got rid of prohibition. I forget what it is called, but it was some sort of a convention. I'll ask my teacher what it was called tomorrow.

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process

No, there are 4 ways to do it. I just can't remember exactly what each process entails. Arachnoidfreak probably knows them all, though.

Mc mike that's exactly what I learned, except that the second route has been used once, to lift prohibition.

If there was a majority vote in a state intolerence can be accepted as long as it did not infringe upon other rights reserved for the federal governemnt. Technically the Supreme Court can order a change but then it is up to the President to enforce its action. And there have been instances where the President actually ignored the court and nothing was done. I was making an arguement if you remember about if a power not deligated to the Fed was passed by a state and did not cross in anyway into the federal system of jurisiction they can do nothing.

essentially both are the same... other then the state legislature compared to the popular vote. And the pres can only like in laws suggest to a congressmen to set forth the guidlines to propose the Amendment process.

Ways to amend the Constitution:

1. Amendment is proposed by 2/3 of the House and Senate

Then it must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislature

2. Proposed by congress, conventions held, 3/4 of the state must accept it to ratify

3. Proposed by national convention, at the request of 2/3 of the states

Ratified by 3/4 of the states legislature

4. Proposed by national convention, and ratified by convention, 3/4 of the states must approve.

4 ways, and that's just formally.

Of course, method 4 is impractical today(but could be used in dire situations), and method 3 has never been used.

The state cannot force anyone to do anything that the population doesn't approve of. It's the way the government was written. It's an indirect democracy, the government doesn't have powers that the people don't want it to have.