Forum Thread

89

Democrat

Portland, OR

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Spoken like a true segregationist from the 1950's and 60's south. States rights allow me to discriminate and be a terrible human being!

Consuming marijuana isn't a civil and human right; being able to marry the person you love is.

I find it sickening how so many Donald supporters have no problem telling other people who they can love when in the same breath they will say they want the government out of their lives. What hypocrites.

jaredsxtn

2017-02-24 10:33:15 AM

Not Logged In

89

Democrat

Portland, OR

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

I'd also remind you that the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is legal in all fifty states. Supreme Court rulings trump any state law to the contrary.

They have never ruled on marijuana legalization in the states that have legalized it. Those states will very likely sue the minute the Feds try to enter one of their dispensaries. Then the courts will step in and be the final arbiter.

Do you understand the difference or is it time to reopen a civics book from your elementary school days?

conservativecat

2017-02-24 12:34:04 PM

Not Logged In

1

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

so if the SC rules that the Fed Govt ban on marijuana for recreational use stands, you'll be in favor of overturning Colorado and Oregon's State constitutional Amendments?

There is no Right to marriage, there is no Federal marriage law or marriage licenses and every state discriminates by the very restrictions that are places on who gets to marry and who doesn't. Right ?

jaredsxtn

2017-02-24 12:53:58 PM

Not Logged In

89

Democrat

Portland, OR

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

conservativecat Wrote: so if the SC rules that the Fed Govt ban on marijuana for recreational use stands, you'll be in favor of overturning Colorado and Oregon's State constitutional Amendments?

There's a massive difference between accepting Supreme Court decisions no matter how bad I think they are and being in favor of overturning the will of the people who decided they want to choose what they can and can't put inside of their own bodies.

conservativecat Wrote: There is no Right to marriage, there is no Federal marriage law or marriage licenses and every state discriminates by the very restrictions that are places on who gets to marry and who doesn't. Right ?

Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan beg to differ.

conservativecat

2017-02-24 01:22:22 PM

Not Logged In

1

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

A ruling is NOT a Right

There's a massive difference between accepting Supreme Court decisions no matter how bad I think they are and being in favor of overturning the will of the people who decided they want to choose what they can and can't put inside of their own bodies.

State of Arkansas has a constitutional Amendment saying marriage is between a man and woman. Its Constitutional in Arkansas, written down, passed by the people.

Why isn't that valid? Its the will of the people, right?

Its either the Govt places Federal laws above state laws, or they stay out of it. One way or the other - enforcing one while ignoring the other isn't acceptable.

jaredsxtn

2017-02-24 02:23:30 PM

Not Logged In

89

Democrat

Portland, OR

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

conservativecat Wrote: A ruling is NOT a Right

Ummm - it is if the Supreme Court says it is. Somebody needs a civics lesson...

conservativecat Wrote: State of Arkansas has a constitutional Amendment saying marriage is between a man and woman. Its Constitutional in Arkansas, written down, passed by the people.
Why isn't that valid? Its the will of the people, right?

It was Constitutional in Arkansas before the Supreme Court overruled you.

The people of Arkansas passed laws that prevented black people from peeing in the same bathroom or using the same water fountain as white people. And the people of Arkansas also passed laws that prevented black people from voting unless they paid a poll tax and passed a literacy test. Need I go on about the countless discriminatory laws your state has passed in recent memory?

I hate to break it to you, but the will of the people in your state is pretty shitty when it comes to civil and human rights. Well, unless those civil and human rights are for straight, white people. You guys have really knocked it out of the park when it comes to that demographic.

Sometimes a higher power like the Supreme Court needs to come in and teach you how (or should I say force you) to be decent human beings.

TJ

2017-02-24 04:29:36 PM

Not Logged In

TJ

4.3k

2

Independent

Central, FL

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

This will be interesting. While standing aside and doing nothing..... The Fed's have chosen to keep marijuana as a schedule 1 drug like it's cousin heroin and cocaine. It's crazy that it wasn't reclassified but I am sure there's an ulterior motive. We will have to see what the Russian govt. (Errr I meant Republican govt.) decides to do. All of the memes on Facebook are making fun of state rights when it allows unfair treatment versus Federal rights when they just want to crush civil liberties like Godzilla. R's find a way to be self serving either way.

Next, eliminating Medical marijuana uses. Sorry people who found relief. Profits aren't helping the right people.

lonely bird

2017-02-24 05:31:34 PM

Not Logged In

lonely bird

1k

8

Independent

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Well, as usual a conservative bleats about the will of the people when it supports his position and ignores it when it doesn't.

Marriage is a social construct. Therefore it ends up being codified by law. Law impacts all people. Therefore it impacts gays. That "the will of the people" in some states is to impose their religious belief structure upon others is unsurprising and irrelevant. Religion has no place determine whether or not two gays can enter into a civil agreement sanctioned by the state just as two straight people can. The time has come to remove from clergy the power to legitimize the civil agreement called marriage. When a marriage license is obtained from the state the two people involved would be married. Any religious ceremony would have no legal bearing and in point of opinion churches could within their belief structures refuse to perform a religious ceremony for gays. Since it would have no bearing upon the actual marriage it would mean nothing.

wwjd

2017-02-24 06:38:29 PM

Not Logged In

wwjd

1.5k

3

7

Independent

Washington

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

TJ Wrote:
Next, eliminating Medical marijuana uses. Sorry people who found relief. Profits aren't helping the right people.

That first thing that came to mind was targeting states that did not go for Trump during the election. And if you think about, using his presidential power to influence specific states through punish\reward, would not surprise me. He's got around him people who are thinking differently\dirty about political warfare, and they are throwing out the rules of right\wrong. Their basic thinking is "If a tactic works, then it's right. If the tactic doesn't work, it's wrong. There is no moral evaluation". Hell, pulling\denying federal funds from states that didn't vote for him during the election very much could be on the table in terms of these new politics from Trump's Administration.

If it were possible, you know he would love to trigger an economic depression limited to the state of California, and you could see him tweeting "See what happens to the stupid people of California, they didn't vote for me and now are in deep shit. Sorry, not my problem...call Mexico"

TJ

2017-02-24 07:29:18 PM

Not Logged In

TJ

4.3k

2

Independent

Central, FL

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Wwjd, I agree with you. This next 47 months are going to be troubling and regretted. I think he will push too hard and unrest will occur. As another said previously he'll denounce the media and fight the courts not allowing all he wants.

Dictatorship is around the corner. Once the military gets comfortable it could go south quick.

conservativecat

2017-02-24 11:00:09 PM

Not Logged In

1

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Do ya'll see the contradictions ?

Fed Law says no marijuana use, yet they do nothing when States pass constitutional laws allowing recreational pot use.

Fed Law says you have to allow gays to marry, and they force States to undo their constitutional Amendments to match it.

I guess the difference is the SC got involved but still there are other issues where States defy the Federal Govt and nobody says nothing, other times its enforced and demanded.

Some consistency would be nice.

wwjd

2017-02-24 11:39:14 PM

Not Logged In

wwjd

1.5k

3

7

Independent

Washington

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

conservativecat Wrote:
Do ya'll see the contradictions ?
Fed Law says no marijuana use, yet they do nothing when States pass constitutional laws allowing recreational pot use.
Fed Law says you have to allow gays to marry, and they force States to undo their constitutional Amendments to match it.
Some consistency would be nice.

Sure, there are a lot of inconsistencies. It's my perception that each Administration sets those the priorities because there simply not enough resources to enforce everything, and political pressure not pursue specific issues. Now that Trump is president, he likely to flip many of those priorities. And we'll see politicians on both sides flip their arguments much like watching a bad debate class in high school, where they simply exchange their arguments.

conservativecat

2017-02-25 09:53:20 PM

Not Logged In