LGBTQ+ Rights and America

@Ace: Dude, I've know you were a chick for a while now. I just happen to call everyone dude.

Erock, I have always been a girl. A lady. A girl lady. From Texas. My chest is very much a lady's chest.

Kino: Ah, I see. I've just... been mistaken a couple times on this site as a guy.

Hey, you've never said anything, and unfortunately male is the default gender.

I'm like Proffessor Oak.

Don't get me wrong, my usual course of action is to presume that everyone is a guy until proven otherwise. I've been right most of the time.

Yeah, apparently I don't come off as female. Even with the times I've had a female avatar. (Which admittedly, isn't often on this site.)

Hm.... we should... end this derail.

Gay marriage...let people vote; end of derail.

But what if they vote against it?

Then no gay marriage; that's democracy for you.

*Resisting urge to demand pictures for perversion lulz.*

And yes, yes we should end the derail.

Part of the likely problem is that it's primarily bureaucratic in nature. That and it's not very high on most peoples radar of importance, so it's much more unlikely to be a deciding factor in whether or not somebody gets a given voters vote.

That's like having a vote to end segregation in the South.

Except we don't have segregation anymore....

I meant in the 60s. Do you think red states would vote yes? Of course not. Why do you think Dixiecrats and the American Indepedent Party won the Southern states in the 60s? If it came down to popular vote, then segregation would not have ended for a good many years.

Like I said before; that's democracy at work. Look at California, they're been going back and forth with the issue for a while now. Let the individual states decide if, when and how they'll deal with the issue.

Fair enough. It's not quite a pressing issue like segregation was. I just think it should go to the federal level. But knowing Congress that's not gonna happen.

Always side with States' Rights over the primacy of Supreme Courts. Especially this court.

States rights dude; they're not too fond of the federal gov forcing legislation on them. But like you said; compared to segregation, gay marriage doesn't rate that high on the list of pressing issues.

Part of that is that marriage, to my knowledge, is mostly a state organized thingy. What privileges and requirements there are varies from one state to the other. Most likely because the federal government didn't give a shit at the time.

Well, federal law would be an awesome thing if things could be equalized across the board. Unfortunately, this doesn't have the country wide support that desegregation did. (I don't mean full support, but people all over the nation were protesting for it.) In this case, letting the states decide might be the best way to get marriage rights faster.

States rights dude

There's the problem.

How is that a problem?

Well the way it rolled out in Canada was through lawsuits. When most of the provincial courts sided with civil rights, the federal government asked for a recommendation from the Supreme Court, the supreme court said it'd be okay to tell all the provinces to make gay marriage legal and then the provinces dealt with the provincial aspects of it. Interesting, one thing I learned from that ordeal, apparently the right to marry didn't come with the right to divorce.

Also, Ace is a girl?

1) That's Canada. In American, people aren't that fond of being told what to do, especially when it's the gov dictating things to a state. Kind of why Texas is always fixin to up and secede.

2) Yep

edited 2nd Jan '12 8:49:37 PM by Kino

Yes, breadloaf, we have already been over this. I have a ladychest. I even changed my avatar so that it would exude femininity. And it took me three tries to spell that word right.

Anyway, it works a bit different here for the states. It's really hard to get agreement across the board, so for certain issues the federal level is just like "fuck it, this can be a state power" these days. It was originally supposed to balance local powers with national powers, so that no area could get the shaft unduly. But now it's kind of a clusterfuck we still have to deal with. With no widespread protests like we had with the Civil Rights movement, going through the states and slowly changing the state's policies is the most efficient way. I imagine that, at some point, if enough states legalize it, the federal level will just go ahead and legalize it in the last few hold out states.

Well I did think the avatar a bit funny because I was trying to picture some guy with cat ears and flowers in his hair. I don't think I've seen such a thing in real life.

Okay I'm not too clear on my American history here but the end to segregation was a Federal order right?

Yeah, it was, and it had the widespread support of the public that was generated by the youth culture of the 60's. We just don't have that same environment in this day and age. (Though that may be changing, due to numerous factors.)

You'll have to remember, though, that for all that it was a legal success, it took years for the social problems underlying it to be addressed in many areas. Ending segregation was just one step in achieving equality.