08-20-2004, 05:22 AM
@ Deadlyman,
The point I was bringing up about the constitutional ban, is that people refused to take it seriously. Why? Because the states have already taken steps for or against gay marriage. It's a borderline moot point.
As far as the steps that should be taken on a state level, if I remember my elementry school teaching correctly, an idea for a bill goes from the people, to a representative in Washington, who drafts a bill, then house, senate, govenor, and possibly back to congress if veto'd. I remember state level being not too different. Although I do remember bills going to a general public vote at some point.
You're original question was:
If its a bill that's voted on, and passed, then it's a done deal. The 'how' part is through a predetermined path (such as amending a states constitution). Who has the authority to define marriage within the state? The state government. Which is representative of the people. Et. Al. I'm failing to see the curve, or the debate, in your post.
Enlighten me?
The point I was bringing up about the constitutional ban, is that people refused to take it seriously. Why? Because the states have already taken steps for or against gay marriage. It's a borderline moot point.
As far as the steps that should be taken on a state level, if I remember my elementry school teaching correctly, an idea for a bill goes from the people, to a representative in Washington, who drafts a bill, then house, senate, govenor, and possibly back to congress if veto'd. I remember state level being not too different. Although I do remember bills going to a general public vote at some point.
You're original question was:
Quote:So if left to the states and the citizens of the states (Example California has already done this) votes to define marriage as between a man and a woman, then should the issue be settled for that state? Or how exactly should this be decided? Who should have the authority to define marriage. I thought when issues are put to the vote of the people it is settled. If public opinion is against redefining the word marriage, then that is what needs to be worked on, not the government.
If its a bill that's voted on, and passed, then it's a done deal. The 'how' part is through a predetermined path (such as amending a states constitution). Who has the authority to define marriage within the state? The state government. Which is representative of the people. Et. Al. I'm failing to see the curve, or the debate, in your post.
Enlighten me?