CTLawGuy
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 06:28 AM
Original message |
| The Maine gay community should file a lawsuit |
 |
that's the next step. The passage of question 1 violates the 14th amendment and the equivalent provision of the Maine constitution by denying to gays what is given to straights.
Do not give up hope, it will take more time, but I think they would win in court, especially with Mass and CT decisions to use as precedent.
|
fasttense
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 06:32 AM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Can you imagine civil rights legislation passing |
 |
if each state could have done a referendum and vote if black people should have the same rights as white people? Civil rights legislation would never have passed in any of the Southern states and probably in only half the northern states.
This needs to come from the federal government.
What is Obama doing about it?
|
CTLawGuy
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
 |
he has pledged to sign bills repealing DOMA and DADT, when and if Congress actually passes those bills. The question should be what is Congress doing about it?
|
tsuki
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 3. He could end DADT with the stroke of a pen, just like Harry T did. |
 |
He is the Commander in Chief.
|
CTLawGuy
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 5. if it's a law he cannot. |
 |
segregation in the military was just a policy that the president could overturn on a whim.
DADT is a federal law and it would be a major abuse of power for the president to break the law. It would set a bad precedent (I guess Bush already set it) to allow the president to ignore any laws that he doesn't like.
It's a matter of getting Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress to act.
|
Ineeda
(744 posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 6. He could end DADT but not the underlying ban on gays serving |
 |
in the military, which is the core problem.
|
123m456h789d
(21 posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 9. What is Obama doing about it is not the ANSWER |
 |
The question is what is we the people is doing. Take it to court. Take it to court. Take it to court. We need Obama to fix the whole USA problem. He can not get bob down with this issues. This Gay Marriage Issues is a death trap for Obama. Let's fight in the court room not the church house. Stop looking at self interest and Look at the big pic. This is a civil right issues. Stop bashing the church and start bashing the courts. We the people put Obama in the office to fix our School, Healthcare, Econ. We the people have to put the Right for Gay to Marry on the LAW book. Open the Mind think outside the BOX.
|
Toasterlad
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
| 13. We This Person Put Obama In the White House To Fix Teh Gay. |
 |
Which is WHAT HE PROMISED TO DO.
Stop bashing gays for bashing Obama. He works for ME. I don't work for him.
If this Gay Marriages Issues is a death trap for Obama, he shouldn't have run for president. Because I won't be satisfied until I have my rights, or he is dead.
And I will continue to bash the church house until they stop funding initiatives to deprive me of my rights.
You lack critical thinking skills.
|
Mari333
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 11. just what I was going to post |
 |
we cannot leave CIVIL RIGHTS up to mob rule. it has to be federal legislation. and if people in the states balk and argue, send in the National Guard like they did in the 60s.
|
Ineeda
(744 posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 06:46 AM
Response to Original message |
| 4. I agree. This is a Constitutional issue. |
 |
And the remedy is to force upholding the Constitution through the courts.
|
CTLawGuy
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
| 7. the experience with this and prop 8 has turned me against |
 |
referenda. I appreciate the concept of representative government. It's better to have representatives whose job it is to understand the law and make good policy, than to have a few un- and underinformed citizens passing laws during an off year election because the Catholic Church told them to.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
| 8. I agree. It is far to easy to pass referenda and initiatives, and they are |
 |
Edited on Thu Nov-05-09 07:01 AM by pnwmom
often destructive.
|
ruggerson
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
 |
I completely agree with you. We are a democratic republic, not an unfettered majoritarian democracy.
|
jonnyblitz
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-05-09 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
| 12. you are correct. my dad up in Maine essentially said the same |
 |
thing as your post. People don't have an accurate idea of what it is exactly they are voting for or against.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon Nov 23rd 2009, 11:48 PM
Response to Original message |