If the Supreme Court declares that a ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional, they do not have to go state by state and look at the particular law of each state. The laws of various states that are not in conformity with a Supreme Court decision on the issue, do not have be declared in violation of said decision, by the Supreme Court, to be unconstituional.
That's why Supreme Court decisions apply to all states, not just one.
Okay, wow. Birth control - Are you unaware that birth control was illegal in many states, even among married couples, until Griswold v. Connecticut, a decision by the liberal Warren Court? Those were conservatives who wanted to restrict birth control, not liberals.
Also, birth control and family planning services around the world have been severely limited by conservatives, not liberals. For example:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/12/13/80331/bush-birth-control-policies-helped.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/bushs-birth-control-polic_n_390870.html
Regarding sex, you seem to be unfamiliar with anti-sodomy laws in our country. Those laws outlawed certain sex acts, including oral copulation, between various people, including even married couples.
Here's a map of the states in relation to anti-sodomy laws:
It shows: US sodomy laws by the year when they were repealed or struck down.
Laws repealed or struck down before 1970 are in bright yellow states.
Laws repealed or struck down from 1970-1989 are in yellow states.
Laws repealed or struck down from 1989-2002 are in orange states.
Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003 are in red states.
Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you notice something about the states that took the longest to repeal such laws? Red states, right? It is conservatives who wanted to control how people have sex with one another, not liberals.
Regarding alcohol consumption, no, I don't hate freedom. It appears that many in red states do, however, because virtually every dry county still in existence in is in a red state:
Dry county - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So again, we are talking about social freedoms and social controls and while you try to protest, it is conservatives who are seeking to maintain such controls, not liberals.
Regarding marijuana, it is still illegal under federal law. Clearly, our first black president is not going to be the one who decriminalizes pot!
But here are the states that have decriminalized non-medical marijuana:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places...zed_non-medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States
Again, notice something about those states? They are almost all blue states. 67% of them are blue states. 17% are purple states and 17% are red states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#Blue_states
So while you may not care about marijuana, the laws against it are maintained by conservative forces, certainly not liberals, who trend towards treatment and decriminalization of most drugs, not criminalization. Remember how passionate the right was about Clinton having possibly smoked some pot when he was younger? Liberals just don't care, for the most part. Again, such freedoms are granted, historically, by liberals and curtailed by conservatives.
Marriage. You state you don't care who gets married. But you seem pretty passionate that the constitution does not grant equal protection to all people when it comes to marriage and that it is simply a state's rights issue.
It does. Loving v. Virginia was a 1967 Supreme Court (liberal Warren Court) decision that struck down anti-miscegenation laws on the grounds that such laws violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man. If that holds true, then how can it not be the case for gay people? And, this particular civil right is also one that conservatives, not liberals, want to deny certain people.
Of course, the denial of the right to marry is a civil rights issue so it is important to discuss civil rights and who wants to control such freedoms.
I'm not sure what you are talking about with regards to liberals being opposed to civil rights. That's flat false although conservatives like to repeated that whenever they can. The Civil Rights Act (1964) was introduced by President Kennedy (liberal democrat) and finally passed by Lyndon Johnson, (democrat).
The act was introduced to congressional republican leaders first, but they had a problem with parts of the bill that granted all races equal access to public areas, so they wrote a compromise bill, which was rejected. Again, those were republicans that had a problem with equal access part of the bill.
Then, the bill was sent to the House. From there, it was sent to a House Judiciary Committee chaired by Emmanuel Celler,
a democrat from N.Y., who added provisions
strengthening the bill, adding provisions that banned racial discrimination in employment, banned segregation in any publicly owned facility, like schools, and included the intense Title III provision which allows the attorney general to protect protesters, etc.
Then Kennedy (democrat) called congressional leaders to line up enough votes to pass it, and it was referred to the Rules Committee where the white southern segregationist democrat named Howard Smith who chaired the committee, stated he would bottle it up indefinitely, to prevent passage.
Eventually, Johnson (did I say he was a democrat?), after Kennedy's assassination, used his weight to get it out of the Rules Committee, and Chairman Smith, in order to avoid embarrassment of defeat, allowed it to pass through the Rules Committee. It passed easily in the House, and then Johnson (democrat) used his muscle to bypass the Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by a Southern Democrat who would have held it up and it was eventually passed easily in the Senate as well.
The Civil Rights Act was created by liberal democrats. It was fine-tuned and strengthened by liberal democrats. It faced oppositions from a coalition of Southern Democrats/Dixiecrats and right-wing republicans from the North.
152 democrats voted for the act in the House. 96 voted against it. 138 republicans voted for it in the House and 34 against it.
46 democrats voted for it in the Senate. 21 voted against it. 27 republicans voted for it in the Senate and 6 against.
That means that 59% of democrats voted for it in the House and 79% of republicans. 69% of dems voted for it in the Senate and 81% of republicans.
All Southern democrats voted against passage.
Now here's the thing: I hear people on the right blame liberals for slavery, segregation, etc, simply because of the Southern Democrat vote.
However, southern democrats as a whole, were not and are not liberals. NONE of the southern democrats who voted against the civil rights act were liberals. They were all conservatives.
This might help explain the difference between southern democrats and liberals:
Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is confusion when it comes to what is left, what is right, what is liberal and what is conservative, when looking at our two main parties. Liberals and leftists have always been against discrimination, racism, slavery, etc., while conservatives and the right, tend not to be. Thus, saying that liberals are and have been against civil rights is like saying the Nazis were far left commies, which many right wingers try to do. In fact, the name "socialist" in the Nazi title notwithstanding, the Nazi party was a far right fascist party. It had nothing to do with liberalism.
Likewise, pro-slavery forces were far right forces as were those, whether Democrat or Republican, who voted against civil rights.
Today, all votes against civil rights come from Republicans, as that party has become very conservative.
So in sum, in the areas where it matters the most, like sex, birth control, marijuana and alcohol consumption, marriage and civil rights in general, it is not liberals who fight for control. It is conservatives who are solidly against freedom in such areas.
In the face of all that, a tax on junk food doesn't seem so intrusive. :twocents:
As for rituals, I do a mean garlic chicken burnt offering on the grill. Not exactly burnt though, just nice and crispy. :woohoo:
unfortunately for those working for equality, CA seems to have some very large pockets of conservative voters.
hoh:
