Don't it make my Red state Blue...

[racrguy]

More via George Takei:

BREAKING: AZ Gov. Jan Brewer has VETOED S.B. 1062, the "Turn Away the Gays" law. So very glad to hear she has listened to the thousands of citizens, businesses and civic leaders who urged sanity and a quick end to the new segregation.

Good. Fuck those motherfuckers for trying to pass it.

More via George Takei:

BREAKING: AZ Gov. Jan Brewer has VETOED S.B. 1062, the "Turn Away the Gays" law. So very glad to hear she has listened to the thousands of citizens, businesses and civic leaders who urged sanity and a quick end to the new segregation.

[racrguy]

I think what he's saying is that as the players have played the game over the last couple of centuries, the original intent has been manipulated by certain parties over the years. So the current popular, yet likely manipulated, "interpretations" differ from the initial intent of the founding fathers.

In order to have a meaningful discussion on manipulated interpretations we need to be more specific about which decisions we're talking about. I think that gay marriage falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Seeing as the founding fathers were long dead at the time of its adoption, are they the go-to source for interpretation of it?

I disagree with you Eric. I think that most conservatives are big-government statists. Republicans and democrats are exactly the same except for social issues. An overwhelming majority want bigger government, more spending, more control. Those that don't have to run under one of those two flags because they can't get elected under another party because of the way the system works.

[Chili]

Oh, and as far as the gay marriage thing, I absolutely believe that they should be able to do so. What they do or feel in that regard is of no worry to me. And my opinion of the blind eye of the law is that legally, there should be no reason to believe that a "marriage" should be conditioned other than it be humans, and consenting adults. In the laws' view, it should be nothing more than entities with constitutional rights entering into a contract / legal status.

[Chili]

Except that's what they did in the constitutional convention. Do I need to cite the part of the Constitution that gives them this power?

I think what he's saying is that as the players have played the game over the last couple of centuries, the original intent has been manipulated by certain parties over the years. So the current popular, yet likely manipulated, "interpretations" differ from the initial intent of the founding fathers.

[Chili]

So basically you are stating that just 1 arm of the federal government can go against the will of a state or states. (What... maybe 4 or 5 judges in total)

Obviously it can....

What I'm saying is that there is no way in hell that any state rep at the constitutional convention would have been OK with that, much less signed on the dotted line.

The Civil War was much less about slavery than State's rights....

Thanks for the links, but I'm well aware of how it works.... I'm saying that how it has "grown" to work over the centuries would never have been embraced by the people who signed the constitution in the first place.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game!

But seriously, I think that our current democratic system has a finite life cycle. I do not believe it will last forever. That's not to say I think that anything will absolutely change in my lifetime, but that I am certain it will, in the not too distant future.

I do agree with your assertions regarding our founding fathers' intent. I do not agree with much of how the Constitution is being "interpreted" these days.

As to the links, I may have totally misinterpreted your post, but I just read it as a very naive take. So I think we're on the same page, I was just being a dick.

[Gargamel]

I think a lot more people that think they are Conservatives are really Libertarians these days. Especially in this state.

I actually agree with this statement....

[Gargamel]

Except that's what they did in the constitutional convention. Do I need to cite the part of the Constitution that gives them this power?

You mean the Supremacy Clause of Article VI?
Also, under Article III, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution....

So maybe you were referring to one of those...

(Some of us don't need Google to have a valid conversation.)

Anyway, my view on this is much more in line with the 10th Amendment strictly read.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were also proponents of nullification and interposition when it came to state's rights if needed (Kentucky\Virginia Resolutions 1798)

I understand that the federal court system over the years have generally found the constitutionality of nullification and interposition void (of course it has), but I view it as within the original spirit of the document itself as the States formed the Union by compact in the first place.

The Federalist papers state that federal laws are supreme to state law, so long as they are within the federal government's delegated powers.
And it does not directly addresses the question of who is to decide whether the federal government has exceeded its powers.

Anyway, I understand that case law has generally shifted generic power to Federal control of just about everything since the Civil War, but it is my opinion (call it a minority dissent) that we have reached the point where the Federal Government just has too much power in the every day lives of Americans from taxes to commerce and wealth distribution.

I also believe that many of the delegates at the convention of our founding document would not recognize many of the decisions made in it's name.

I'm going go ahead and put my tin foil hat back on now....

I think a lot more people that think they are Conservatives are really Libertarians these days. Especially in this state.

[bird_dog0347]

Who effing cares, worry about your damn self and not what other people want to do in their private lives and this isn't an issue. Government should stay out of our private lives, and this includes LGBT crowd as well. It's no one else's damn business.

One of my close friends is completely against gay marriage and when I press him on the issue he says it is due to his religious beliefs. However he chooses to ignore the side of those christian beliefs that would have him forgive others and help him to understand that it's not his place to judge them. He also claims to be a staunch republican but I can't see how they can be soooooo against government control except when it is used to exude power that isn't theirs.

I'm a conservative, but this whole thing bugs the crap out of me. Who gives a damn, that is actually minding their own business?

For the record I'm straight and married, I have a gay uncle and my sister in law is gay and wants BADLY to get married to her woman but can't in this state.

Glad to hear it.

[Sean88gt]

Non issue. Why shouldn't Brent be happy too?

[racrguy]

So basically you are stating that just 1 arm of the federal government can go against the will of a state or states. (What... maybe 4 or 5 judges in total)

Obviously it can....

What I'm saying is that there is no way in hell that any state rep at the constitutional convention would have been OK with that, much less signed on the dotted line.

The Civil War was much less about slavery than State's rights....

Thanks for the links, but I'm well aware of how it works.... I'm saying that how it has "grown" to work over the centuries would never have been embraced by the people who signed the constitution in the first place.

Except that's what they did in the constitutional convention. Do I need to cite the part of the Constitution that gives them this power?

[Pro88LX]

worrying about what a gay guy does with his junk is the 3rd gayest thing you can do.