Originally Posted by Malorn
I would prefer he defer to the states to decide their own path. I don't see why the federal government needs to step in (on either side of the issue). If the people of a state wish to allow or ban it - so be it. It is their decision. I don't see why we need yet more federal government dictation of what people can or can't do.
|
Aside from scale, what's the difference between a state and a federal government determining who's allowed to marry who?
Are you saying people in seperate states aren't equal so those in states with oppressive laws just have to suffer the consequences of not having the same rights as others in other states?
Also why is a majority in a state different from a majority nationaly?
I find it rather hypocritical, tbh. Basically you're saying you don't trust democracy, as from what I gathered earlier, one of your arguments is that it keeps a majority somewhere from dominating a local majority elsewhere. Regardless, the individual suffers somewhere.
If Romney wants to make it a constitutional thing, then that is a restriction of human rights and individual rights nationally on the basis of making a number of narrowminded voter-folks happy.
If you're so afraid of majority power, then why would you ever be in favour of a state election system that guarantees a bipartisan and therefore a national majority (individual rights infringing) system?
The current federal republic system just makes no sense as it creates dictatorships by the few leading majorities. You have no choices but two who you might not be behind. How could your leaders possibly represent you?