Page 5 of 31 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 309

Thread: Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

  1. #41
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Let's "pretend" for a moment that gay marriage is not enforced by the Constitution.

    The Constitution being the only thing that can trump the democratic process (even though, in a way, it's subject to the democratic process), what else is there to trump democracy? (Hint: nothing.)
    Oh, agreed. Just like it used to be perfectly allowable to discriminate against blacks under the Constitution.

    The fact that discrimination and bigotry are allowed by law doesn't mean it's not still bigotry and discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Except this has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with legal or illegal. I agree that allowing gay marriage would be the right thing to do. I disagree that there's some way to do it that circumvents the will of the people.
    But, as you know, the laws are written to protect the minority from (as the founders put it) "the tyranny of the majority." Sometimes doing the right thing means going against the majority views.

    There's no honor or bravery in cowing down to the majority.

  2. #42
    The Almighty
    Kelzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,534

    Re: Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post

    It may be more useful to compare sexual orientation to religious affiliation. Religious affiliation certainly is a choice to a greater extent than sexual orientation, even conservatives can acknowledge that, yet we do not expect people to tolerate different legal treatment based upon religious affiliation.
    I saw someone did that. It made me a little jealous I didn't post it first!
    be humble for you are made of earth; be noble for you are made of stars

    Serbian proverb

  3. #43
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Every step away from civil liberties toward popular madate is a step from republicanism to populism.

    The only right the majority was supposed to have in this country is the ability to decide who our civil administraters will be. They aren't supposed to have any real authority over the law, which is no real sense can be contingent on the will of the people.
    Erm, you realize this is a thread about gay marriage right? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and until recently it wasn't even considered that it might be otherwise. So not suddenly changing that is not a step away from republicanism, since we started there to begin with. Especially since if gay marriage is made legal democratically, it will be through elected representatives, i.e. republicanism.

    Your post is irrelevant anyways. The public votes on its government; its government votes on its laws. The will of the people matters there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Oh, agreed. Just like it used to be perfectly allowable to discriminate against blacks under the Constitution.

    The fact that discrimination and bigotry are allowed by law doesn't mean it's not still bigotry and discrimination.
    Again, not wanting gay marriage is not bigotry. And again, I have been specifically talking about how gay marriage is to be made legal, not whether it's right or wrong. Some seem to think that even without the Constitution, there is a way to do it without the majority accepting it.

    But, as you know, the laws are written to protect the minority from (as the founders put it) "the tyranny of the majority." Sometimes doing the right thing means going against the majority views.

    There's no honor or bravery in cowing down to the majority.
    Again you miss the point, which is that before, you and others (or at least others) seemed to want gay marriage to be made legal without any form of democracy being involved. I keep trying to point out that this is impossible

  4. #44
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

    Erm, you realize this is a thread about gay marriage right? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and until recently it wasn't even considered that it might be otherwise. So not suddenly changing that is not a step away from republicanism, since we started there to begin with. Especially since if gay marriage is made legal democratically, it will be through elected representatives, i.e. republicanism.

    Your post is irrelevant anyways. The public votes on its government; its government votes on its laws. The will of the people matters there.
    Democratic protocol and procedure is incidental to republicanism. Have been, both in theory and practice, since Aristotle.

    Republics can be oligarchies, rule of the few and wealthy, even despotic governments (rule of one). The only essential quality of a republic is that it invests legitimacy and power into principle (aka, a Constitution) rather than in the decisions of an entity (a king, corporate executives, or an assembly of citizens).

    That is, medieval nations are not republics because their kings and nobles abide by High Justice, a variety of justice where any rules and protocol are provisional and optional; things like "innocence before guilt" and "due process" and "private property" exist at the discretion of the decision-making of a single person (they can either not exist at all, or be suspended at the convenience of the judges and executors) -- in good cases, their compassionate, reasoned judgment of what is best for the people of their country, in bad cases, at his whims and tantrums.

    Most of the democracies of Ancient Greece were not republics either, because they have a very limited sense of civil rights and liberties; the only freedoms allowed, and duties prescribed, are those agreed upon by the collective at any given point in time. That is, no real freedom and no definite duties, no genuine principle or law. Hence, when several generals failed to achieve optimal results on the battlefield, the Athenians decided to deprive them of due process and summarily executed them.

    Ancient Rome was a republic, which employed democracy minimally. The people were allowed to run in/vote for some public offices, but the higher offices were restricted to the Patricians (aka, the noble born), which was oligarchy (rule of the few). However, this was because it was believed (argued) that Patricians had the character and skill necessary to administrate a free society with property rights; it was beleived that because Patricians were outnumbered by commoners and had a lot of property and freedom to lose, that they would be eager to put their advanced education and resources to defend the principles that Roman society was founded on. So, Ancient Rome combined democratic and oligarchic functions.

    And the Founding Fathers (who used Ancient Rome was a model) founded their government on law and principle; this is what makes the United States of America a republic. They reasoned democratic functions were more useful and necessary than the Romans believed, but they also felt a tyranny of the majority would pose a danger to their cherished principles. So, they designed the government to frustrate majorities, while not depriving them totally of power.

    Unfortunately, it isn't perfect.

    Bottom line is, the will of the people is not valuable in and of itself (for that matter, I don't think it even exists).
    Last edited by Morality Games; 04-13-10 at 05:30 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  5. #45
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Again, not wanting gay marriage is not bigotry.
    Please explain why. Seriously, ever explanation against it I have seen is basically "I want them to be second class citizens not able to get the same rights I have." I mean, that's the very definition of bigotry, really.

    Oh sure, bigots can convince themselves that there is some reason for their discrimination -- they always can -- but when you boil it all down, it's basically "I don't like it."

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Again you miss the point, which is that before, you and others (or at least others) seemed to want gay marriage to be made legal without any form of democracy being involved. I keep trying to point out that this is impossible
    Our courts are appointed or elected by us, so when a court decides something, that is as much a part of our democracy as anything else. We the people don't vote personally on every single law and regulation, after all.

    But even then, even the founding fathers did not want the people deciding everything, worrying about "mob rule" and "the tyranny of the majority." Having the courts protect a minority viewpoint from being trampled by the majority is about as pro-American as you can get.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Please explain why. Seriously, ever explanation against it I have seen is basically "I want them to be second class citizens not able to get the same rights I have." I mean, that's the very definition of bigotry, really.

    Oh sure, bigots can convince themselves that there is some reason for their discrimination -- they always can -- but when you boil it all down, it's basically "I don't like it."
    So was every person in history who ever lived, before a few decades ago, a bigot?

    It's not bigotry, it's caution towards fundamentally changing something in an area where it has remained the same for thousands of years. People are afraid of the implications of such seemingly arbitrary power over tradition. Please don't call my family bigots, because they're not, and lost and lots and lots of anti-gay marriage people are not the least bit homophobic.

    Our courts are appointed or elected by us, so when a court decides something, that is as much a part of our democracy as anything else. We the people don't vote personally on every single law and regulation, after all.
    Yes... but the court's job is to interpret the law and the Constitution. If the right to gay marriage is in neither (which is what I believe to be the case) then they are irrelevant to this.

    But even then, even the founding fathers did not want the people deciding everything, worrying about "mob rule" and "the tyranny of the majority." Having the courts protect a minority viewpoint from being trampled by the majority is about as pro-American as you can get.
    The courts do not protect a minority viewpoint, the laws and Constitution which the courts interpret do.
    Also, the founding fathers were not for gay marriage. Until recently, nobody was.

  7. #47
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    There is no basis in genetics or any boilogical evidence to support your claim.

    There are people who have gone from being heterosexual to homosexual and vise versa.

    Haven't seen one person go from white to black.


    And the sexual biological reaction to stimulus always results in the same outcome. The body prepares for procreation, a purely heterosexual act and the only way to pass genetic material from one generation to another naturally. Homosexuality has no basis in either genetics or biological sexual reaction which is why you cannot equate it to either race or heterosexuality as being equal.

    Yes....I can put on purple contact lens to "change" the color of my eyes.
    But does that really mean my eyes are in actuality purple?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  8. #48
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Marriage has always been between a man and a woman...
    Well...not exactly. There have been many laws that have prevented "a man and a woman" from getting married (e.g., laws against inter-racial marriage).

    There have been other times when marriage has been between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman....etc. etc. etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dav
    Again, not wanting gay marriage is not bigotry.
    Perhaps...but arrogantly believing that you have the right to foist that view on the private lives of two consenting individuals....IS



    [/QUOTE]
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #49
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    So was every person in history who ever lived, before a few decades ago, a bigot?

    It's not bigotry, it's caution towards fundamentally changing something in an area where it has remained the same for thousands of years. People are afraid of the implications of such seemingly arbitrary power over tradition. Please don't call my family bigots, because they're not, and lost and lots and lots of anti-gay marriage people are not the least bit homophobic.



    Yes... but the court's job is to interpret the law and the Constitution. If the right to gay marriage is in neither (which is what I believe to be the case) then they are irrelevant to this.



    The courts do not protect a minority viewpoint, the laws and Constitution which the courts interpret do.
    Also, the founding fathers were not for gay marriage. Until recently, nobody was.
    It is also the court's job to determine if a benefit that is given to one group of citizens, such as the benefits that come with marriage, are being applied equally to every citizen. In the case of marriage, this is the problem. The Government, any part of it, has failed to actually specifically state why it offers the benefits it does to heterosexual couples, when it endorses marriages.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #50
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

    There are some things to remember about this whole debate, some of which people on both sides may take issue with.

    First, those of us in favor of gay marriage are the ones seeking a change to the laws. That means it is up to us to not just present a case of why it is good, but we need to make compelling. While I agree, gay marriage should be legal for fairness and nondiscrimination reasons, for those we have not convinced, this is not compelling. So while I think mentioning those is correct, Spending our time and energy debating those points will not win outside of a courtroom. Until all the appeals are done on gay marriage court fights, we won't know how that works out, and arguing it won't change the outcome.

    So we have to find compelling reasons. First compelling reason to my mind is that more and more, gays are raising children. A married home is a more stable environment for children than a nonmarried home. You cannot stop gay people from raising kids, and it is happening more and more. When I was a kid, being gay meant almost certainly losing a child custody battle. This is no longer true, and I know two separate gay people in my apartment complex who are gays with custody of their children. The couple being married gives those kids a more stable environment.

    Next compelling argument is to my mind that it is going to happen eventually, so it's time to stop fighting it. When I was a kid, gays almost entirely hid their gayness. Now, most fully admit it and are mostly accepted. The younger generation does not even really understand what all the fuss is about.

    Next compelling reason is that civil unions are more and more being recognized, and becoming more and more like marriage. If civil unions are just marriages under a different name, then it is silly to have two different categories for the same thing.

    In the end, this may very well be decided by the courts before most states have allowed it. If the courts do not rule in favor of gay marriage, it only slows things down. Gay marriage is going to happen. At this point it is inevitable. I predict 20 years from now the concept of gays as anything other than people who sleep with some one you wouldn't is going to be unknown outside of some old people. Those old people will be listened to in the same vein as the old people now who bitch about how "we didn't need cell phones and computers in my day".
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 5 of 31 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •