Dezaad

This would be an alternative mechanism to accomplish the same goal (of restricting majority rule so as to protect smaller factions from tyranny). It is not the mechanism that was envisioned by the passing of the Bill of Rights, however. This is for good reason, in my view: Why should I have to leave the city or town of my birth simply to enjoy observance of the Sabbath on Saturday?

Tucker Case

How could a local jurisiction prevent someone from personally observing a Saturday Sabbath?

Dezaad

If these conditions were true:

• There was no Bill of Rights or any other Constitutional protection against making it the law.
• A community was comprised of a majority of religious zealots who believe that the Sabbath can only be observed on Sunday.
• Enough of those people believed it was their business to direct for everyone when the Sabbath should be observed so as to force their representatives in local government to make it the law.

Then there would be nothing to prevent this sort of law making. They could make a law which states that if anyone is found to be observing the Sabbath on Saturday, they will be arrested and jailed for 6 days.

It is the Bill of Rights which prevents this tyranny of majority, and prevents it in all localities, as it should be. Just as it prevents other, more likely, tyrannies.

Tucker Case

How do they make sure nobody obserrves the sabbath? Would they force them to roll on Shabbaz?

Dezaad

Tyrannical people find ways to enforce the laws they pass. But that is really not the point. Why is it relevant that they be able to enforce their law on a regular basis? Wouldn't it be egregious for even one person to be charged under such a law?

The reason why it would be egregious is the point of the scenario.

Tucker Case

I agree that law is despicable. I would fight it adamantly in my own region.

But you directly contradict your own stance of not forcing a morality upon people when you are forcing your morality upon an area that does not affect you. (Your morality being anti-discriminatory in nature)

It is unavoidable to enforce a certain morality upon a group. While laws exist of any type, morality will be forced upon others. Majority rules, regardless of the specifics.

I see it as a necessary evil that is best localized as much as possible. Any morality applied nationwide is hypocritical, and contrary to the real reasons that the bill of rights were created.

The bill of rights was added to appease the anti-federalists who were wary of the constitution given the federal government too much authority. The bill of rights was the compromise. It states which rights the federal government could never abridge.

Most importantly, the bill of rights was created to prevent those rights from being abridged by the federal government through the use of the "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses of the constitution.


P.S. On a purely logical note, anyone of a sort who remained living in a region where the described sabbath laws applied is tacitly agreeing to follow the law. If they seek an injunction of the law immediately, or fight vehemently for a grandfather clause before the law gets passed, they will have had ample time to prepare for the creation of the law. This is not something that could be "sprung" on a person. The argument that their rights would be limited due to discrimination is true enough, but they are aware of the discrimination and have been given a chance to decide what to do about it. If they choose to do nothing, they get what they deserve.

Any progeny they have that is born under the law or had no say in the course of action that would be taken, has been placed in a most egregious situation, And they can place blame for the infringement of their own personal rights solely on the person who tacitly agreed to the laws and agreed to force them to live within the scope of those laws.

Any person who desires to move into that region, has no right to bitch when the limitations are applied to them.

So, in effect, anyone who would get charged with the law, has made a choice to be charged with the law. They are not "victims" of discrimination. They are willing participants in discrimination.

A "victim" of discrimination is unaware of its presence, and has no option to prevent it. In this scenario, the victims are the one's not given the choice, and forced to remain under the blanket of these laws even though it is known that conflict will eventually arise.



So, even though I adamantly oppose these types of laws on personal moral grounds, I also believe that my morality should not be applied universally.

That's why I specified "local level" and "prevention of escape". I don't think any morality should be enforced nationally (even statewide for that matter). My own personal morality is a moot point. So while I personally view it as the bill of rights should apply universally and that government should never encroach on personal lives of others, I also firmly believe that these views should only be adopted by choice. Not through force of law. Because if they are adopted anyother way, they are worthless.

American

As long as you're not arrest on the Sabbath, I think God is fine with it. J/K, j/k

Look, I'd like to know if we're still on topic, because I see all kinds of side issues popping up. Why do we have marriage laws anyway?

__________________
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." -- Thomas Jefferson יהוה

Tucker Case

The laws exist for monetary reasons. Marriage exists with or without laws governing it's nature or recognizing it's existence.

Dezaad

If the topic is narrowly defined as discussing the fact that California is going to vote down the amendment to ban gay marriage, then this thread hasn't really been on topic since page one.

If the topic is defined as discussing why California is going to vote down the amendment to ban gay marriage, then this thread is still not on topic.

If the topic of this thread is simply just another thread in which to discuss the pros and cons of regulating marriage by limiting it to one man and one woman, then it is still on topic.

LennyD

Topic? What Topic

I have to think that any topic with as much interest and opposing opinion as this (or these as listed above) will no doubt end up swaying into other directions.

What I have found interesting is the amount of what appears to be good intent by most to be fair in their thinking and posts, and how it seems there is a majority who want to protect the rights of others while still allowing a clear distinction of the difference between straight and homosexual couples.

Except for a small few (mostly those fully supporting or opposing the whole idea etc) this really does not seem to be as much an issue as is projected.

I hate to repeat myself, but if both sides would cut the crap and stick to what is the real issues and not the BS surrounding it (allowing rights, and not forcing the marriage word or old values to chage to your beliefs) we most likely would not be having these conversations.

To be completely on topic would there even be an attempt on a ban if those seeking the same rights as straight man and woman marriages accepted that it would not be the same as a traditional marriage, will most likely not be accepted by many as the same, and that the real goal was or should have been to remove the barriers restricting their rights.

I hope this is not a battle over making mainstream America accept an idea, belief, or change their beliefs on what marriage is. If some are clouding the real issues with this then shame on them.

__________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"
Albert Einstein

**Question Everything**