I see people obsessed with this crap. There is but one fact to this: If the federal government can't do any good, neither can "The State".

What makes anyone think that because it's the "little" government pulling the strings that it makes them magically more competent than the "big" government? Is it because you hear of them less? I think the less I hear of them makes it seem more like they're hidden deeper into the shadows and are twice as shady. Do you suddenly think that because it's "not" the the ones you hear of the most that it suddenly means they're on your side? Do you want to give the little Obamas more power than the big Obama?

Since I saw this from one of those "conservatives" on the forums, here's what I have to say in regards to that:
1. You want to deny homosexuals the ability to be "married" across the board. Those "States" that allowed it did it of their own decree; they didn't "sell out" to Obama, you conspiracy queen. (A guy made the post, and I thought "Queen" was more applicable, especially after seeing this statement in the LD; "He's just a confused and angsty teen who thinks he's a hard man and who imagines he's conservative." wink

2. You apparently want this because you automatically assume that every state representative is "conservative" and that the federal government is "liberal", possibly because you live in a state assumed to be "conservative". Giving "State's Rights" (s**t they already have) to these people will only ensure that you will allow separate states to become full opposition to you. Of course, since you want this so bad, you apparently don't care if a state becomes 100% atheist run with no federal regulations, since the state in question would not affect you, because you're all cozy-a** and comfy in your "conservative" state.

When people originally claimed to want more "State's Rights", they wanted it because they knew the state in question would allow them to keep slaves, since the "big" government said "no". It would still have been made illegal in the rest of the states, you know, by those states' decree, but we know the mentally unsound states still would have argued that those states shouldn't ban slavery. It doesn't really help the question than to know that something should remain on one way or the other in regards to the "total" law, just because you want it that way.

So how about this, let's grant some permanent "state laws" right now and leave the current homosexual marriage laws exactly where they stand; 13 "states" allow it, and homosexuals get no more "states", and you can have 37 "states", and you don't get any more "states".

I know that because the imperial expansionism in you cannot allow the discourse to happen in a different "state", but we'll keep it at that number to see how much you won't stop screaming at other "states" that "don't affect you" to change their laws in order to abide by your own "state"*.

*I'm doing the whole "State-in-quotation-marks" thing because I feel the definition is arbitrary, seeing as how we might as well grant "City Rights" since this may as well be extended to each town on an individual basis. Why not get smaller than the small governments? You seem to think "the smaller the better", so let's get dime-sized small. (Obligatory, "like the size of your p***s" pun is required.)