Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Was just told by the vote to go die... (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Was just told by the vote to go die...
Telperion
Member
Member # 2147

 - posted      Profile for Telperion   Email Telperion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hello all... I'm a poster over at the Hatrack forums. I started a thread of similar nature there...but I wanted to come over here, spread the word, and put a living face on what for many is just some strange idea. And also to show my anger.

I am a gay guy. My name is Karl Wolf and I'm from Detroit, Michigan. I am directly affected by this election...

These amendments are terrible things. A horrible step backward in civil rights. Karl Rove came out the day after and basically said that all these anti-gay amendments were used just to get the evangelical voters out for Bush.

Thanks Bush and Karl Rove... in an effort to win you have sacrificed my future.

I see that bigotry and prejudice have not gone away... just changed forms. Let's bring back the Jim Crow laws while we're at it.

Thanks fellow Michigan citizens. Now not only will it probably take 50 years before gay marriage or unions will be legalized but now all the partner benefits that exist will be lost too. Granted, we only lost by 12% or so... not TOO bad.
*gives that 12% the finger*

Hopefully the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional...

I've said before that I don't care if the state recognizes me or not, I'm going to live my life how I'm supposed to not matter what anyone says...but this feels like a real slap in the face. Being told to shut up and go die. I don't think people realized what it means to amend the constitution and the implications. And they didn't even have all the wording of the amendment on the ballot. Whatever.

I don't want to be insulting.. but this vote is against ME personally, and every other and all other gay/bi folk. And this insults all those couples that are married but have no children....and insults again those gay folk who live the same way but are somehow different.

The human race will not stop breeding. Civilization will not collapse.

This is bigotry...and there is no way around it. I'm living in it. I can tell you it's real.

So, everyone who voted to dictate how I can live my life... fine. That's your right. But it's my right to insult you back. *raises middle finger to all the voters for these evil amendments*

Now that we are even...let the court battles begin.

Posts: 8 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anonymous24
Member
Member # 1468

 - posted      Profile for Anonymous24   Email Anonymous24   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Telperion, don't worry. Bush and co. aren't serious about stopping gay marriage or the social changes America is experiencing. They don't think those changes can be stopped - and they can't stop them. Bush just gave a speech about initiatives for his second administration, and he didn't mention gay marriage or abortion or anyting to do with social issues. What he did mention was 'tax reform' and 'allowing people to invest in Social Security'.

A second Bush term is going to be a real learning experience for those who voted for Bush thinking he was going to return America to the 1950s.

Posts: 1226 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can still live your life as you have before the vote. I can understand you being upset but the vote was not telling you to go die.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Telperion, I have no problem with gay marriage, but I do have a problem with activist courts. There is a major risk in using unelected judges to force social change on people who don't want it, and what you saw on election night is a consequence of that. While activist courts have made some great contributions to civil rights and progress, this has come at a cost: namely the simple fact that if a court can warp the law to satify a liberal agenda, a court can just as easily do the opposite. You may think that gay marriage is a good thing, but to suggest that this is something required by the constitution of any state is obvious fiction. Homosexuals may be the victims of a backlash against this kind of social meddling, especially now that the Republicans seem poised to start putting conservatives in place on the bench.

[ November 05, 2004, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Karl,

Hang in there. I know it's gotta be tough to stomach, but realize these things take time. Ten years ago same sex marriage wasn't even on the radar. If a vote had been taken then, it porobably would have been 90% against you. Realize that a lot of progress has been made. Yes, there is much more work to do, but I believe it will get done. Who knows what ten years from now holds? Also realize you have many straight people in your corner who do support gay rights. I wholly sympathize with you. I know it sucks, but try not to despair too much.

For the rest of the Ornery crew, regardless of your feelings towards this issue, please do not light a fire on this thread and throw gasoline on it.

[ November 05, 2004, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Haggis ]

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Justin Johnson
Member
Member # 1259

 - posted      Profile for Justin Johnson   Email Justin Johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Telperion, I have no problem with gay marriage, but I do have a problem with activist courts.

Without 'activist' courts, it would still be illegal in Texas for Telperion to have sex with his partner in his own home (if it were located in Dallas).
Posts: 90 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Without 'activist' courts, it would still be illegal in Texas for Telperion to have sex with his partner in his own home (if it were located in Dallas).
Using activist courts is not the only way to change the law.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Justin Johnson
Member
Member # 1259

 - posted      Profile for Justin Johnson   Email Justin Johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
Using activist courts is not the only way to change the law.

How many Texan state legislators would have publically lined up behind a bill to decriminalize gay sex?
Posts: 90 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
However many get voted in to do that.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Justin Johnson
Member
Member # 1259

 - posted      Profile for Justin Johnson   Email Justin Johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So no one gets voted in to do that because no one dares to run on that platform in Texas, and the law never gets changed, and gay sex remains criminal. How is that supposed to change? Or should gay sex be illegal? Or is it simply unimportant enough for it not to matter?
Posts: 90 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Justin Johnson
Member
Member # 1259

 - posted      Profile for Justin Johnson   Email Justin Johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In other words, how long should an injustice be suffered to persist because overturning it isn't popular?
Posts: 90 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many legislators would publically line up behind a bill to decriminalize pedophilia?

If none, would that make it okay for activist judges to do it instead?

There are ways to change laws in this country. Legislators can make them. So can the public voting on constitutional amendments.

Judges can strike down laws under certain circumstances.

If the people feel judges struck down laws wrongly, they can do things to change it.

There are checks and balances.

I need sleep. I'm starting to lose my train of thought. I apologize if I've offended anyone or said anything really stupid tonight. Maybe I'll write better and more clearly tomorrow.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Karl--

I'm sorry for the way these elections came down. There's no excuse--and certainly an activist judge is no excuse--for dealing with gay folks the way we have. Like you said, it's a big **** you to everyone who isn't all straight. A "**** you and we hate you because God Hates Fags" for all.

I wish I had better for you than this. I am on your side. And we've made alot of ground in the last 10-20 years. But still, "God hates fags." There's so much left to do.

Plz take care, and welcome to this forum.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Justin Johnson
Member
Member # 1259

 - posted      Profile for Justin Johnson   Email Justin Johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
How many legislators would publically line up behind a bill to decriminalize pedophilia?... There are checks and balances.

So for you, popular injustices that will persist throughout the victim's lifetime may not be over-ruled by a judge doing what he's supposed to do--judging--because he might judge wrongly?
Posts: 90 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SpencerHR
Member
Member # 1401

 - posted      Profile for SpencerHR   Email SpencerHR   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hopefully the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional...
Just a question about this statement: can any court declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? I think I remember hearing that the government could really add anything to the constitution (after going through all the procedure) and the judiciary couldn't do anything about it, because their job was only to interpret the constitution, which a new amendment would be part of. I'm not sure if I remember that correctly; can anyone clarify this for me?

And Telperion, I'm sorry that things have worked out this way for you. However, the majority has spoken, and that's the way things happen sometimes in democracies, though I know us just saying "tough breaks" really isn't cutting it for how you're feeling right now. I voted against the SSM ban here, but I do know a tremendous amount of people who voted for it, and I can tell you that the ones worth talking to don't hate you (or any other gay people, for that matter) personally, they just disapprove of your lifestlye. Again, I know this must be small consolation. You seem to be very distraught over this. Have you thought about moving to another state?

Posts: 66 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
that's the way things happen sometimes in democracies
Majority rule is how it always works in democracy. Thankfully we live in a republic, and they are designed to protect the rights of individuals at the wrong end of mob rule. A law banning a particular form of sexual intercourse between two consenting adults sounds like a civil rights violation to me.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerHR:
quote:
Hopefully the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional...
Just a question about this statement: can any court declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? I think I remember hearing that the government could really add anything to the constitution (after going through all the procedure) and the judiciary couldn't do anything about it, because their job was only to interpret the constitution, which a new amendment would be part of. I'm not sure if I remember that correctly; can anyone clarify this for me?
Different constitution in question, in this case, they were changes to the State Constitution of those States. Not the Federal one, so the Federal Courts can still overturn it based on the US Constitution.
Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lewkowski, pedophilia involves CHILDREN. Gay sex between consenting adults does NOT. Can you comprehend the difference?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Judges are allowed to overturn laws that are unconstitutional. They are supposed to. There is nothing activist about this. I think it's fair to say that the law in Texas (which prevents two consenting adults from engaging in whatever behavior they want in their own home) does not mesh well with the constitution. I think gay marriage is a different issue, and I'm not convinced that it is the same. But I think we're getting a little carried away by calling every ruling in favor of a gay person to be "activist".
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that it is important to figure out exactly what the voters' message was with the amendments which passed in eleven different states.

For some voters it was undoubtedly "God hates fags" as some here have said. However, I really doubt if those are in the majority.

I think for most voters the message was this: homosexual unions are not the same thing as marriage and we will not treat them as the same thing as marriage in our society.

Apparently some of you will take that to mean that most voters are homophobes. But you will be wrong.

Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam,

quote:
Majority rule is how it always works in democracy. Thankfully we live in a republic, and they are designed to protect the rights of individuals at the wrong end of mob rule. A law banning a particular form of sexual intercourse between two consenting adults sounds like a civil rights violation to me.
The courts agree with you and this law in Texas was struck down. But I can't see any civil rights violation in saying, that unless you conform to these proscribed rules, you can't enjoy these benefits. Pacifists who don't register for the draft do not get the oppurtunity for certain scholarships at school and forfeit aid later on in life. It isn't a civil rights issue, this isn't the civil rights era.

Potemkyn

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Judges are allowed to overturn laws that are unconstitutional. They are supposed to. There is nothing activist about this. I think it's fair to say that the law in Texas (which prevents two consenting adults from engaging in whatever behavior they want in their own home) does not mesh well with the constitution."

I don't know enough about the Texas constitution to say if this was an "activist" decision or not. As I said though, activist courts have done alot of good vis a vis improving peoples' rights. However, that doesn't change the fact that they have broken the system by making their jobs a matter of exercising political ideology, rather than interpreting the law. As I said, while this creates a tempting shortcut to valuable social change, it is dangerous, because if an activist court can mangle the law to achieve a good end (such as declaring women to be "persons" under the law) an activist court of different political pursuasaion can just as easily mangle the law to achieve a not-so good end. (declaring abortion illegal)

Activist courts are alot like vigilante justice. It's faster and more efficient than doing things the legitimate way, but ultimately, it can just as easily blow up in your face. To quote Yoda: it's "quicker, easier, more seductive..." [Smile]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Lassek:
[QUOTE]A law banning a particular form of sexual intercourse between two consenting adults sounds like a civil rights violation to me.

Then, I assume, you don't have a problems with incest or polygamy or prostitution? Between consenting adults of course.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adjudicator, in most of these states, the voters went much further than that, and rejected any kind of partner rights. That is homophobia, and a gross interference in a ones personal life. Who on earth are you (or I, or anybody) to tell KidA who can visit him in the hospital? Whom he can leave his belongings to?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Adjudicator, in most of these states, the voters went much further than that, and rejected any kind of partner rights. That is homophobia, and a gross interference in a ones personal life. Who on earth are you (or I, or anybody) to tell KidA who can visit him in the hospital? Whom he can leave his belongings to?
I'd have to look into it myself to see whether I agree with your interpretation. Offhand I'd say that you are building a straw man since such rights as those you enumerated (inheritance, hospital visitation etc) can be had by legal means which have existed for a very long time before the question of same sex marriage ever arose.
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, but they have to be arranged specially. That's like saying you can have your wife be entitled to visit you if you arrange that in advance, when in fact that's just not practical if you're hospiitalized on short notice, see?

Same with inheritance. Sure, you can leave your money to your dog, but if you die without a will, your wife inherits automatically, because that's one of the things you did when marrying her legally. Even common law wives have more automatic rights than gay partners.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, but they have to be arranged specially
So what? A marriage also requires special arrangements, paperwork etc. If the partners are in a committed relationship then why is it so much more difficult to fill out the paperwork for those rights than it is to get a marriage license?

It sounds to me like your argument of legal riights would me that gay rights activists could achieve their ends by simply fighting to streamline the process of setting inheritance rights, visitation rights etc rather than redefining marriage.

Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Then, I assume, you don't have a problems with incest or polygamy or prostitution? Between consenting adults of course.
Where's the problem?
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Marriage is a contract between two individuals. If we disassociated the state from the process, most of these issues would become null issues. The marriage contract/vows should be a contract between two individuals, not between three (two people and the state).

As for Federal Constitutional changes - I believe that the first 10 amendments are 'higher' than other amendments. That becomes pretty obvious if you read the preamble to the Bill of Rights.

That being said, I do not believe many of the laws on the books should exist. Why should the government care if you accept money for sex, have sex with another person of the same sex, etc. As long as you're not violating individual or property rights of another, it shouldn't be a governmental issue, nor an issue for the courts.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Karl, a relevant quote:

"Every day of my life I woke up illegal. Then a legal person tried to murder me, and when they finally did make me legal I didn't want to be."

You're an American, I presume; that means that when people come around telling you how to live your life the first thing you know about them is that they aren't good Americans. Tell them to F/O.

Adjudicator:

This phrase "activist judges" is based on the presumption that the MSC sought to impose their opinions on the public. Have you heard their opinions of their opinion?

Do you really think couples, who have multiplied their special rights through activist judges for heterosexual marriage a thousand fold in the last century could have raised 'bachelors' and 'spinsters' to the legal level of 'husband' and 'wife'? You've got to be joking!

Z:

Lewkowzki has no empathy. The empathy card is missing. (NB: Why does Lewkowzki use unAmerican spelling???)

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd wondered this before - who's Lewkowzki, and where's (s)he posting?

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lewkowski started the Roe v. Wade thread.
He also seems to like threads on war.
I've seen him on the SF protest thread.

You'll get the gist of him reading a few posts.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Weezah
Member
Member # 2003

 - posted      Profile for Weezah   Email Weezah   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wish people who are pro-SSM would stop calling everyone who is against it homophobes. I don't see how not wanting to make huge sweeping fundamental changes in our society shows any form of anymosity towards the gay population. Just to be blunt, you can gain all of the rights you seek to obtain (ie. hospital visitation, estate appropriation, etc) through other means than by legalizing single sex marriage. You can put in your will who will recieve your money when you die. You can put another persons name on the deed to your house fairly easily. You could draft a bill that would be very easy to get through on visitation rights in the hospital. So what other reason do you have for wanting to push it through?
Posts: 64 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Weezah,

quote:
. So what other reason do you have for wanting to push it through?
I believe the reason is called 'equal treatment under the law'.

Personally I'm against the government being involved in marriage at all. It should only perform civil unions and leave marriages up to religious institutions.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This sort of hysterical accusation is one more case of crying wolf too many times. No one has told you to go and die. People simply stated in large numbers that their definition of the word 'marriage' is exclusive.

Stop trying to deceive everyone. You don't want tolerance: you want people to _accept_ you as normal, for what you are. You're seeking legitimacy.

Radicals have been foolish enough to try to seize legitimacy with tantrums and deliberate violation of the law. The fiasco in San Franciso this year, with Newsome giving out marriage licenses to gays, set the causes of gays back a hundred years.

These people claim to speak for you. Are their actions, or your own hysterical hand wringing here, conducive to being perceived as normal?

Legitimacy cannot be obtained by the tactics the radical gays are using. Ordinary people, whatever their persuesion, do not rant and rave and claim people want them dead. They do not engage in sex acts in public in "In your face parades". They do not put sex in the face of children. And they work within the system to change things, rather than blatantly defying the law.

Radical ways may well have been necessary to achieve tolerance, but they are no longer useful. To take the next step, gays are now going to have to stop _whining_, and live in society as ordinary people. Only then are they going to be _perceived_ as ordinary people. As long as gays allow radicals to serve as a face, gays will be perceived as radicals.

Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Majority rule is how it always works in democracy. Thankfully we live in a republic, and they are designed to protect the rights of individuals at the wrong end of mob rule. - Adam Lassek
This is a pet peeve of mine - the US can be described as as a democratic republic, or as a constitutional democracy (among other things.) But just being a republic does not automatically mean that there's a constitution - it does mean that there's a president. And saying that a democracy is strictly "majority rule" is also incorrect.

Democracy is a superset of all types of government "by the people" or by their elected representatives. On the other hand, the word "republic", in and of itself, does not necessarily denote a representational form of government.

So - the US is a republic and a democracy. But it is only because it is constitutional that the rights of the minority are protected from mob (or other) rule.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You may have a point, Donald. "Constitutional Republic" is probably the best term. I disagree that "constitutional democracy" is a legitimate term, I am not aware of the Founding Fathers ever using that term to describe our government.

And judging from Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

"Republic" by itself is a legitimate description, since it is used that way in the Constitution. Perhaps "Constitutional" is implied.

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tel, Bush and Cheney should send your little band of fanatics a thank you card, because you made this victory possible for him. I find it pathetic that you think that just because I and other religious people aren't coerced to use the word "marriage" to refer to your relationship with your lover, that this is some sort of return to Jim Crow. Give your deluded self-pity a rest, and stop talking like a sliver in your finger trumps the real suffering and enslavement and disfranchizing in our world.

Read up on your Copernicus. The world doesn't revolve around you, and the fight to protect the definition of marriage, really has nothing to do with you or with the gay community. Make your own traditions; don't try to steal and redefine ours for your own purposes. We don't try to turn your gay bars into our churches. You leave marriage alone. Live and let live. Think you can manage that?

I wish you could. Why should you be entitled to universal affirmation? I don't need you to approve of my quirks.

[ November 05, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Personally I'm against the government being involved in marriage at all. It should only perform civil unions and leave marriages up to religious institutions.
Hear, hear!
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Molonel
Member
Member # 1667

 - posted      Profile for Molonel   Email Molonel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm all for getting the government out of the marriage business, too. But evidently, all these folks who like big government would rather see more intrusion into our lives and private affairs.

Let's face it: only the Libertarians are serious about smaller government. Republicans and Democrats alike prefer big government and more spending, and that is reflected in how they vote. They simply have different values, and emphasize where they want government to intrude in different ways.

Posts: 182 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1