Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If both the House and Senate make a 2/3 vote then they can jointly put together an amendment. Then the legislature of each state has to ratify the amendment. Once there is 3/4 acceptance the amendment is made part of the Constitution, successful amendment usually reach that point in about a year.
Interesting, thanks.
And if a state disagrees with certain fundamentals of the government, could they secede? (legally, as per constitution)
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Interesting, thanks.And if a state disagrees with certain fundamentals of the government, could they secede? (legally, as per constitution)
This is good. I understand being apprehensive because a court overturned it, but it shouldn't have been passed in the first place.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Interesting, thanks.And if a state disagrees with certain fundamentals of the government, could they secede? (legally, as per constitution)
As per the Constituation, no, but the Supreme Court ruled (Texas v. White) that states can leave the union if they get permission from the federal government or, obviously, if they militarily overpower the rest of the country.
"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As per the Constituation, no, but the Supreme Court ruled (Texas v. White) that states can leave the union if they get permission from the federal government or, obviously, if they militarily overpower the rest of the country."The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
The reason I asked was exactly because of Texas. I was speaking to the person from Texas with whom I've been discussing independence. (of Quebec, not Texas).
He claimed there is a small independence movement there or something.
Equally, he spoke about the laws, not specifically gay marriage, but others(?) which certain Texans do not favour and believes Texas would sustain itself well on its own.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The reason I asked was exactly because of Texas. I was speaking to the person from Texas with whom I've been discussing independence. (of Quebec, not Texas).
He claimed there is a small independence movement there or something.
There are succession movements all over the country, probably more in Texas because they seem to believe they have the right to leave any time they vote on it.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Equally, he spoke about the laws, not specifically gay marriage, but others(?) which certain Texans do not favour and believes Texas would sustain itself well on its own.
I doubt it. The economy of all the states is pretty closely tied together. They would also have the problem of being invaded immediately by the US due to the missile silos there.
Originally posted by BackFire
Many issues of social rights for a minority group are 'forced' upon states. It's how it worked when the country legalized interracial marriage decades ago. It wasn't put to a vote, because it would have been voted down. Federal judges said it was unconstitutional and they rectified it despite the majority at the time disagreeing. If this indeed ends up standing as being unconstitutional then it will HAVE to be allowed throughout the country entire, as the entire country must follow the constitution.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
Nah, it' not jsut a skin colour... Black people can run faster hmm
That is because their belly button is a bit higher than in a Caucasian person or an Asian person. That has something to do with centre of gravity, as I recall. It's the reason white people can generally swim better than black people, but black people are much better at running....or so discovery channel says.
i really have a hard time believing any of that.. the belly thing angle..
i can see why one race might be better at something due to physical attributes but to call it on the position of the belly button i find it preposterous..
swimming has more to do with buoyancy then the position of your belly body and center of gravity.. imo.
i'm not watching discovery channel anymore..
I didn't read the whole thread, but I am sure the same old arguments on both sides have been brought up, and likely the one I am going to state, too, but here it is anyways. In an ideal world I'd get away with the term marriage altogether. In fact the government would not recognize civil unions in any particular way other than how it now handles any contract between people. I'd figure what we understand as marriage would be basically the same as people incorporating as they do already. That way 2 or more people of age can make contracts regarding their financial and social conditions and they would be sanctioned in the same way any private contract is. That would allow the same status for polygamous and homosexual relationships as monogamous heterosexual ones (and no there's no slippery slope for children, animals and toasters). In private anyone can call their union anything they want and have any ceremony they want.
I mean I can see the point of marriage, however there seem to be better, more modern ways to deal with it.
Originally posted by Peach
One can only make this argument if someone tried to pass a law saying that churches have to marry homosexual couples. Which isn't the case at all.Quite frankly, it's a very stupid argument. Especially since I'd say that divorce and annulments 'cheapen' marriage more than allowing gays to marry.
I'd like to point out that your first line is definitely false. Gays and gay rights activists have and continue to campaign to get churches to lose their tax exemption status if they refuse to marry gays.
However, it's far more likely that that won't get passed in America when America was founded upon strong anti-government opression ideals such as separation of church and state.
That is a word mess, right there, and I could pick apart my on sentence with many different arguments. So, to help prevent that, I'm talking about the state controlling churches. As long as churches are not harming children or the people (basically, not doing criminal things), then they should stil lbe tax exempt and get to exclude people from "their club." That's basically it.
In other words, I should be able to fom a private non-profit ccurhc for every single person except for kids with the name "Susan."