Comments on: NOM Marriage News: May 7, 2010 http://www.nomblog.com/871/ The official blog of the National Organization for Marriage Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:12:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Adam http://www.nomblog.com/871/comment-page-1/#comment-17091 Adam Mon, 10 May 2010 21:03:41 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=871#comment-17091 I would agree here with the above. "human right" could be rationalized to include more than it was intended. Seems how gay marriage wasn't even known at the time when the "human right" was created, I don't think it means what you think. I would agree here with the above. "human right" could be rationalized to include more than it was intended. Seems how gay marriage wasn't even known at the time when the "human right" was created, I don't think it means what you think.

]]> By: ConservativeNY http://www.nomblog.com/871/comment-page-1/#comment-17083 ConservativeNY Mon, 10 May 2010 01:00:28 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=871#comment-17083 "Now hold on. Were people stripped of their right to vote? Or were they denied the right to vote on a specific issue? Because -- as you know -- there are plenty of thing American citizens aren't allowed to vote on. For instance, we can't vote to strip women of their right to own property. Or do you think we should be able to? Do you think EVERYTHING should be up for a vote?" That's a specious argument. Supposing the DC government redefined marriage to include polygamy or inscest? And then used this backdoor rationale to disregard the people's right to vote on this as specified in the DC charter by claiming that inscest marriages and polygamy were a human right? Can the DC government bypass the charter by claiming that anything they want to force on the people to be a human right? "Now hold on. Were people stripped of their right to vote? Or were they denied the right to vote on a specific issue? Because -- as you know -- there are plenty of thing American citizens aren't allowed to vote on. For instance, we can't vote to strip women of their right to own property. Or do you think we should be able to? Do you think EVERYTHING should be up for a vote?"

That's a specious argument. Supposing the DC government redefined marriage to include polygamy or inscest? And then used this backdoor rationale to disregard the people's right to vote on this as specified in the DC charter by claiming that inscest marriages and polygamy were a human right?

Can the DC government bypass the charter by claiming that anything they want to force on the people to be a human right?

]]> By: Woody http://www.nomblog.com/871/comment-page-1/#comment-17082 Woody Sun, 09 May 2010 22:34:05 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=871#comment-17082 The question isn't whether or not the people have the right to vote. If you're a U.S. citizen, you're registered to vote and don't have a felony conviction, you have the right to vote. The real question is whether or not the people have the right to vote on any issue and have the results of the vote enforced. As Rob stated, the voters cannot vote to have women stripped of their property rights and expect that such a vote be enforced. According to the logic of some of the posters here, the people should have the right to vote that individuals fulfill specific gender roles. Example, a male will not fufill the role of spouse to another male. It's very simple. If you accept that the people have the right to vote on any issue on its whim, then the people have right to vote away anyone's rights. The question isn't whether or not the people have the right to vote. If you're a U.S. citizen, you're registered to vote and don't have a felony conviction, you have the right to vote. The real question is whether or not the people have the right to vote on any issue and have the results of the vote enforced.

As Rob stated, the voters cannot vote to have women stripped of their property rights and expect that such a vote be enforced. According to the logic of some of the posters here, the people should have the right to vote that individuals fulfill specific gender roles. Example, a male will not fufill the role of spouse to another male.

It's very simple. If you accept that the people have the right to vote on any issue on its whim, then the people have right to vote away anyone's rights.

]]> By: Adam http://www.nomblog.com/871/comment-page-1/#comment-17075 Adam Sat, 08 May 2010 07:15:12 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=871#comment-17075 "When the lawyers for the D.C. City Council made their argument--a D.C. statute had been passed saying the city’s human right code could not be amended by a vote of the people, and that meant the rights laid down in the charter do not apply here--the Chief Judge pointedly asked: Isn't that "a back door way of amending the Charter, putting a restriction on people's rights?"" Am I reading this right? You can change human right code, but when it comes to marriage, then rights go out the door? "When the lawyers for the D.C. City Council made their argument--a D.C. statute had been passed saying the city’s human right code could not be amended by a vote of the people, and that meant the rights laid down in the charter do not apply here--the Chief Judge pointedly asked: Isn't that "a back door way of amending the Charter, putting a restriction on people's rights?""

Am I reading this right? You can change human right code, but when it comes to marriage, then rights go out the door?

]]> By: Rob http://www.nomblog.com/871/comment-page-1/#comment-17074 Rob Sat, 08 May 2010 02:43:53 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=871#comment-17074 "Do politicians have a right to strip you of your constitutional right to vote?" Now hold on. Were people stripped of their right to vote? Or were they denied the right to vote on a specific issue? Because -- as you know -- there are plenty of thing American citizens aren't allowed to vote on. For instance, we can't vote to strip women of their right to own property. Or do you think we should be able to? Do you think EVERYTHING should be up for a vote? In the meantime, don't overstate your case like this. It makes you untrustworthy. "Do politicians have a right to strip you of your constitutional right to vote?"

Now hold on. Were people stripped of their right to vote? Or were they denied the right to vote on a specific issue? Because -- as you know -- there are plenty of thing American citizens aren't allowed to vote on. For instance, we can't vote to strip women of their right to own property. Or do you think we should be able to? Do you think EVERYTHING should be up for a vote?

In the meantime, don't overstate your case like this. It makes you untrustworthy.

]]>