View Single Post
Old 03-20-2009, 04:12 AM   #10
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Again, not that I disagree with the improper actions of states that suppress the rights(see the second part of my first post). Just that phrasing it the way you did is not correct. The initial concerns were of stepping on states' sovereignty(10th Amendment). I'm not arguing that it should not be done. Just that the justification for it as you claimed is not what the RNC claimed. And since you were claiming that was the reason Bush decided against signing it, I felt that your relabeling of it was incorrect.
I'm not attacking you directly or anything. Just defending my wording. Sorry if I went off on any tangents not directed at you.

Either way works for me though, so I'll change the OP to better fit the justification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Actually I do somewhat agree with not signing it. I feel this is something that SHOULD have been handled by the Supreme Court, as it comes down to an issue of equal treatment under the law. But I agree with it in that this will force the SC to make that judgement when one of the states challenges it.
Yeah, agreed. Hopefully this will not cause anything to happen too quickly, as that could be just as damaging.

However, I also feel the SC and State courts have had more than enough time to decide. On the other hand, California's courts overruled it but put it up for vote and it is now banned by the California constitution, so the courts can't always fix the problem either.

I'd like to have enough hope in the voters that their minds will change over time, but maybe we need a push in a direction first. I've had the feeling for awhile that the courts have been trying to be hush about this, but this at least, as you said, opens up new opportunities for states to talk amongst themselves and the SC.

Maybe something will come of it, maybe nothing will. Still nice to see that we have promised to treat a group of people humanly though, which is still a nice step in a direction.

No promise on marriage anyway, as many of the members who have signed do not allow marriage themselves. The treaty is more against hate crimes and inhumane treatment, which marriage isn't high on either of those lists at the moment.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,