... couples in a same-sex marriage; the bill however would not compel individual states to recognize same-sex marriages, former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, is for its repeal as well.
en.wikipedia . org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act
Like or Dislike: 0 0
Well, differing speed limit laws on a state by state basis, causes more trouble... because people have to memorize each states speed limits...
DOMA aka the "Defense of Marriage Act" is federal law, that's why same sex couples are not recognized as married on the federal level, however, it's on the repeal to be replaced by the "Respect for Marriage Act" which would give same sex couples marriage status on the federal level, and allow the U.S. federal government to provide benefits to ...
What happens when a universal law is wrong? If a law is wrong in a state, you can just go across a state line, if it's wrong on the federal level, you have to go to another nation. Going back to the speed limit example, if I want to drive 80 legally, I just head out to Utah, in 1987, I needed to go to Germany.
What if it does become federal law that marriage is just between a man and a woman? I don't want my friend Joe to have to leave the country to get married. Right now, he can go to NY.
The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution explains that federal law always trumps state law which means federal always wins if there is a conflict between the two... which is why there's an ever growing movement to overturn the dismal DOMA... as it imposes a set of federal laws based on religious beliefs onto all... the claim that marriage is a man and woman union... well, marriage isn't inherently religious to begin with...
Well, I think there should be universal laws, for the speed limit example... based on what type of traffic it is, be it a highway, freeway, school zones, etc.
However, if that's left to the states fine, but I'm referring to what states cover certain medical practices, etc. or what states give certain rights to certain groups of people... but not others, or what a states education curriculum is...
the loud guy talking over the video is annoying.
We already let states determine who gets what. In most eastern states, the maximum speed limit is 70. In most Great Plains and Mountain states, the speed limit is 75. For 13 years, the federal government imposed a 55 mile/hour limit. This was not the will of the public, so the rights were given back to the states.
It may seem silly, but the principle behind it is the same. It caused states to compete on the speed issue. Several states raised limits to neighboring states limits due to demand.
Question is : How can he do that ? Quite naive to say that a man would be able to know if someone deserve to be imprisoned or not.
... doesn't mean I'm going against what this country stands for... because I'm not denying him his right to his own beliefs, etc. I'm simply disagreeing with them, based on reason and evidence, and why I hold religious belief against anyone running as president of this country... I feel the same way about Romney, etc. That however doesn't mean I'm urging for the passing of legislation to ban people that right...
I want a government based on facts and logic, with people that accept things that are fact, not beliefs... and those who use logic and reason, and I want public education run by such individuals... not people who hold on to bronze age beliefs... it was a nice idea, more or less, if you exclude the holy wars, inquisitions, crusades, etc. but it was wrong about how the universe began, and our species and all other species came to be...
I want an absolute separate of church & state... aka secular.
There is NO concept in creationism, which meets any of the qualifications of a scientific theory, NONE. Creationists have no facts, no laws, no evidence, no explanative power, all they have, is whatever science can't explain, creationists pretend they can.
They state as fact, that which is not evidently true, and they say, science can't explain this, therefor God.
I don't base them solely on that... but when someone ignores facts for beliefs, then yea, I got a problem with that.
I think someone ignoring the facts does determine if they're qualified, maybe not in terms of leadership itself, but education.
... he called it "Germ Theory." GERMS ARE STILL A THEORY! Atomic Theory is still a theory. Theory of gravity has never been proved.
A scientific theory, is a body of knowledge, that is supportative of, and explanative of facts. Scientific laws are included within a theory, facts are included within a theory, that's why you have the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity.
Yes, he didn't say it in that video, but I heard it another video, just gotta find it first...
Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is attempting to explain how it occurs, not if it does or doesn't... we know evolution occurs, thanks to genetics.
Once upon a time, the founder of Protestant Christianity, said that doctors were fools, for treating diseases, as if they came from material causes. Then, Louis Pasteur disproved that, and came up with something, gonna love this, ... cont.
Now that is an AMERICA i want to live in!!!!
Don't base your vote on someone's beliefs. Whether or not he believes in evolution does not depict whether or not he is qualified to lead our country in the right direction. Instead look at the fact that he is an honest man, consistent, and has a plan on how to get us out of this messy situation we find ourselves in.
"he believes that "intelligent design" should be taught along side evolution... " - your exact words not 2 hours ago. He never once said that in the video you linked. Also just because he chooses not to believe in evolution does not make him ignorant. I believe in evolution as well, but like it or not buddy, it is not all fact. Some of the points in evolution are indeed just theories. They are very calculated theories but theories none the less.
Let him believe what he wants... everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but their own facts... I don't want a willfully ignorant president... so it's not fine.
I never said he wanted to force religion into anything... but the fact that he holds onto superstitious faith based beliefs... knocks his peg down a bit for me, and it's not just RP, I hold Obama to the same thing, as I did Bush, and of course, I was born in 1990... so I only became interested in politics during GWB's second term...
Also, let him believe what he wants, if he doesn't want to believe in evolution that's fine. As long as he separates his religion from his policies then it's fine, which he does this. This part of your argument is unnecessary the only thing that you should worry about is how he's going to run the country not what he believes in. And he does not want to force intelligent design into curriculum, all he says in your video is that he doesn't agree with evolution.
I also think it's wrong to tell someone if they don't like it, to go to another country, so that one should have to move thousands of miles spends hundreds of dollars or more just to get rights... which of course, referring to George Carlin, rights can't be taken away, if they can, then they're privileges.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
7 × two =
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Yes, send me email updates and action alerts from RonPaul.com
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
RonPaul.com is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his staff.