Put Gay Marriage On A Statewide Ballot

[1fromawoodpile]

see how often it wins.

 

[moonglow18f]

We could put all sorts of things on ballots and let people pull a lever for them, doesn't make it right. Lets vote on a law that makes everything free, maybe an honor-based worth system and then when it inevitably gets voted in because people are so fundamentally near-sighted and selfish, we can enjoy some looted wine and watch the country burn.

 

[1fromawoodpile]

We could put all sorts of things on ballots and let people pull a lever for them, doesn't make it right. Lets vote on a law that makes everything free, maybe an honor-based worth system and then when it inevitably gets voted in because people are so fundamentally near-sighted and selfish, we can enjoy some looted wine and watch the country burn.

No. Let the people decide. That's what the country is all about. Unfortunately, for Gays on 31 state ballots where it has appeared their "right" to marry has been defeated.

You know who is most against it? Black America.

76% of Blacks voted against Proposition 8 in California.

I find that very funny.

 

[moonglow18f]

I find it funny that one minority is so ready to persecute another minority for their beliefs. The facts may exist that back your claim, it doesn't mean your interpretation is right. Nor, relevant really, because a vote against is a vote against (or vice-verse) regardless of whom casts it. Isn't that what your in favor of, letting the people decide?

People are fundamentally flawed, seeking to capitalize on our weaknesses rather than unify to focus on our strengths. As a group, we will never agree, never achieve, and never grow. This is why we nominate leadership; although imperfection rests in them as well it does so on a much smaller scale because there are less people in the leadership role so it's easier to deal with. My point is, once again, that leaving almost ANY issue to the will of the whole doesn't mean the result would be right (as noble as the effort is) if a result would even be forthcoming.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Blacks opposed letting females vote, too.

The galz pushed passage of the 14th Amendment, expecting that blacks would help with an equal rights amendment for women; didnt happen.

 

[1fromawoodpile]

I find it funny that one minority is so ready to persecute another minority for their beliefs. The facts may exist that back your claim, it doesn't mean your interpretation is right. Nor, relevant really, because a vote against is a vote against (or vice-verse) regardless of whom casts it. Isn't that what your in favor of, letting the people decide?

People are fundamentally flawed, seeking to capitalize on our weaknesses rather than unify to focus on our strengths. As a group, we will never agree, never achieve, and never grow. This is why we nominate leadership; although imperfection rests in them as well it does so on a much smaller scale because there are less people in the leadership role so it's easier to deal with. My point is, once again, that leaving almost ANY issue to the will of the whole doesn't mean the result would be right (as noble as the effort is) if a result would even be forthcoming.

So do you leave it to some "Elite" to decide, like a state supreme court? I prefer the masses as it is a more accurate representation of public opinion. In fact, the more people who weigh in the better. Whether it is right or wrong from a moral standpoint will never be agreed upon by all. Of course, a complete libertarian will only ways prefer such issues to be a matter of individual choice.

 

[1fromawoodpile]

I find it funny that one minority is so ready to persecute another minority for their beliefs. The facts may exist that back your claim, it doesn't mean your interpretation is right. Nor, relevant really, because a vote against is a vote against (or vice-verse) regardless of whom casts it. Isn't that what your in favor of, letting the people decide?

People are fundamentally flawed, seeking to capitalize on our weaknesses rather than unify to focus on our strengths. As a group, we will never agree, never achieve, and never grow. This is why we nominate leadership; although imperfection rests in them as well it does so on a much smaller scale because there are less people in the leadership role so it's easier to deal with. My point is, once again, that leaving almost ANY issue to the will of the whole doesn't mean the result would be right (as noble as the effort is) if a result would even be forthcoming.

Why do you call Black American opposition to Proposition 8 in California persecution? I would call it their "moral" viewpoint that Gay marriage is wrong and their votes an overwhelming (by percentage) expression of this. I reject the notion that anyone who views traditional marriange as correct and only correct by default persecutes those that hold a different view. I further reject the egalitarian notion that everyone and everything is equal. It's utopian and simply wrong.

 

[moonglow18f]

So do you leave it to some "Elite" to decide, like a state supreme court? I prefer the masses as it is a more accurate representation of public opinion. In fact, the more people who weigh in the better. Whether it is right or wrong from a moral standpoint will never be agreed upon by all. Of course, a complete libertarian will only ways prefer such issues to be a matter of individual choice.

Public opinion is and has always been whatever the people with the loudest voice tell those that can't be bothered to rub the necessary braincells together to devise an opinion of their own, just reference religion.

I agree that voting as a whole is a noble concept and doesn't always lead to negative things or indecisiveness, but my point is that the decision reached is not always 'right' nor necessarily conclusive.

All matters, even those determined as a whole, are individual choices so i don't understand your last point.

Why do you call Black American opposition to Proposition 8 in California persecution?

I was actually referring your veiled assertions about the black community in relation to how they voted, which was ironic because you felt your cause (or at least, one you seem to champion in this argument) was being persecuted against. The interwebs are known for leading to misunderstandings, so if I misinterpreted your statements then I apologize. i doubt I did.

 

[CandiCame]

Someone who's a conservative explain this to me. I've seriously never understood the anti-marriage argument. What's up with that? Why is a legal contract limited by gender? Didn't we decide not to do that in the 60s? I'm honestly anti-marriage as an institution anyway- so this is not a "I'm a fag" rhetorical question. Any time I've asked this question, I've been given a religious answer, which is, legally, irrelevant. I'm not talking churches and white dresses, I'm talking about the marriage certificate that you get at the court house. Your church doesn't want to do it, that's cool- but what is the legal reasoning behind limiting a legal contract along gender lines?

 

[mercury14]

The majority should never get to decide what a minority's rights are.

Someone who's a conservative explain this to me. I've seriously never understood the anti-marriage argument. What's up with that? Why is a legal contract limited by gender? Didn't we decide not to do that in the 60s? I'm honestly anti-marriage as an institution anyway- so this is not a "I'm a fag" rhetorical question. Any time I've asked this question, I've been given a religious answer, which is, legally, irrelevant. I'm not talking churches and white dresses, I'm talking about the marriage certificate that you get at the court house. Your church doesn't want to do it, that's cool- but what is the legal reasoning behind limiting a legal contract along gender lines?

Conservatives see fit to legislate their own morality and use Big Government to force it upon those who disagree with them. That's all the argument they need.

 

[CandiCame]

Conservatives see fit to legislate their own morality and use Big Government to force it upon those who disagree with them. That's all the argument they need.

They must throw a hell of a party.

http://media.masslive.com/breakingnews/photo/-42367fb27822c654_large.jpg

 

[Beco]

No. Let the people decide. That's what the country is all about. Unfortunately, for Gays on 31 state ballots where it has appeared their "right" to marry has been defeated.

You know who is most against it? Black America.

76% of Blacks voted against Proposition 8 in California.

I find that very funny.

Black leadership hates gays....cultural thing I guess

 

[RobDownSouth]

I find it funny that one minority is so ready to persecute another minority for their beliefs. The facts may exist that back your claim, it doesn't mean your interpretation is right. Nor, relevant really, because a vote against is a vote against (or vice-verse) regardless of whom casts it. Isn't that what your in favor of, letting the people decide?

Exactly. Give the newcomer a cookie.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The majority should never get to decide what a minority's rights are.

Conservatives see fit to legislate their own morality and use Big Government to force it upon those who disagree with them. That's all the argument they need.

Exactly right. What the OP is asking for here is Tyranny of the Majority.

Individual rights are not, and can not be, subject to a public vote, the political function of rights is to protect minorities from oppression by majorities. The right for same sex couples to marry, marriage being a legal institution as well as a religious one, would fall under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

 

[mercury14]

No. Let the people decide. That's what the country is all about. Unfortunately, for Gays on 31 state ballots where it has appeared their "right" to marry has been defeated.

You know who is most against it? Black America.

76% of Blacks voted against Proposition 8 in California.

I find that very funny.

Religious folks regardless of race voted for Prop 8. African Americans tend to be a bit more religious and there was a multi-million dollar ad campaign telling lies about how equal rights would force their churches to perform gay marriages.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

They must throw a hell of a party.

http://media.masslive.com/breakingnews/photo/-42367fb27822c654_large.jpg

Mother fuckers.....look at all that fucking green....stolen by the man.

 

[mercury14]

Exactly right. What the OP is asking for here is Tyranny of the Majority.

Individual rights are not, and can not be, subject to a public vote, the political function of rights is to protect minorities from oppression by majorities. The right for same sex couples to marry, marriage being a legal institution as well as a religious one, would fall under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Who's alt are we talking to here?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Who's alt are we talking to here?

No idea, but it's dumb as a fucking stump (any post it's made), homophobic (this thread), and racist (this one).

The Right wingnut tri-fecta of Lit. It could be any number of Lit's usual suspects or some new douche that slithered over from Stormfront.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Putting any law up for a state wide ballot is a cowardly act. When they make any other law they do not ask our fucking permission.

Pussies need to take a stand one way or the other.

 

[Wok]

Who's alt are we talking to here?

It uses (mostly) complete sentences, so it is not a Cade. The flower looks like an Amicus, but Amicus has the balls to be bigoted under his own name, so who knows what it is.

 

[CandiCame]

I've still yet to hear the conservative viewpoint on this. I've never understood it. I just don't believe that it could be a moral/religious thing, because those things are irrelevant to legal contracts. I mean, there's what's moral and then what's legal and never shall the two meet. That's one of our basic laws here in the states, you can't impose your morality on someone else, there has to be a valid reason for it- like how it's morally wrong to kill random people, but legally, you can kill folk for trespassing and other various reasons. Morally, that's a grey area, legally, if they're on your property, it's totally within your rights to shoot.

 

[1sickbastard]

I've still yet to hear the conservative viewpoint on this. I've never understood it. I just don't believe that it could be a moral/religious thing, because those things are irrelevant to legal contracts. I mean, there's what's moral and then what's legal and never shall the two meet. That's one of our basic laws here in the states, you can't impose your morality on someone else, there has to be a valid reason for it- like how it's morally wrong to kill random people, but legally, you can kill folk for trespassing and other various reasons. Morally, that's a grey area, legally, if they're on your property, it's totally within your rights to shoot.

I'll give you an actual conservative veiwpoint: It doesn't affect my rights to private property or my rights to participate in the governing process. Therefore, it's NONE OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS!

 

[CandiCame]

I'll give you an actual conservative veiwpoint: It doesn't affect my rights to private property or my rights to participate in the governing process. Therefore, it's NONE OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS!

ZOMG, JTHM!!!!

You make me happy!

 

[1fromawoodpile]

Exactly right. What the OP is asking for here is Tyranny of the Majority.

Individual rights are not, and can not be, subject to a public vote, the political function of rights is to protect minorities from oppression by majorities. The right for same sex couples to marry, marriage being a legal institution as well as a religious one, would fall under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

This is bullshit!

The Fourteenth Amendment did not mandate or mention social, political, or economic equality. The Congress that approved it in 1866 had established and segregated the Washington, D.C., public schools. Twenty four of thirty seven states segregated their schools at the time this was passed. Moreover, in "Plessy v. Ferguson" (1896) segregation was upheld by the Supreme Court as consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.

What's the point?

Not until the 1960's did the courts begin to impose a concept of equality that the authors of the Decleration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Federalist Papers and the Gettysburg Address never believed in.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads citizens enjoyed the same constitutional rights and equal protection of existing laws. Nothing in the Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, mandated social, racial or gender equality. Liberal, non-constructionist, judges are to blame. Just the like the incompetents on the Mass state supreme court.

The bastardization of the Fourteenth Amendment has gone so far as to some how include the erroneous interpretation that any child born to an illegal is automatically a U.S. citizen.

Vaughn Walker, a gay federal judge in San Francisco, has ruled that same sex marriage is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Can anyone believe this absurd notion of equality was intended by or written into the Constituion by the Congress of 1866 that produced it? Bullshit.

 

[1fromawoodpile]

No idea, but it's dumb as a fucking stump (any post it's made), homophobic (this thread), and racist (this one).

The Right wingnut tri-fecta of Lit. It could be any number of Lit's usual suspects or some new douche that slithered over from Stormfront.

And you are an egalitarian jackass who sits and wonders why the country has so many problems in the wake of your utopian diversity.

Anyone who disagrees is given the label homophob or racist. It's so easy for you liberal shits.

Well, I am here to say fuck you to you and your 8.3% unemployment, higer under employment, apologetic pussy of a President, zero energy policy and ObamaCare.

There is a culture war. Your not going to win it! That's why faggot marriage has lost EVERY time it has been put to a vote. There is a silent majority in this country. Learn to love it!