Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Simon, using my post above as reference, you'll see that I agree. Straight up mob rule is not the right way. We will start to see socially liberal courts here soon, and if certain measures are followed, I don't have a problem at all with courts deciding this issue. It is unjust that a segment of our culture is being held from having all the same civil rights as any other segment simply because of a lack of understanding and bigotry. My other concern is having an elitist group holding all the power. Like I said, it's about the precedent with me. Once the Judiciary starts down that road, the other branches of the collective US governments won't take long to follow. That's also why even I started having problems with Pres. Bush. He turned out to be too much of a big government guy in all the wrong areas. As a soldier, I don't want to see the day when my job is to break down the doors of otherwise law abiding US citizens just because the hold a view that doesn't mesh with the "Elite Few".
Civil Rights has always been a long and painful process. But that is because the minority groups that pursued civil rights and succeeded knew that trying to overthrow the very principle of "self-determination" would only bring about a backlash against them for eroding the rights that matter to everyone.
Prop 8 doesn't just have to do with a specific group's rights. I know people feel very secure when they are in the majority and are sure they are right, but I think complacent is a better term. People who voted for Prop 8 actually told the government they were okay with the state limiting people's right to marry. I think it's a dangerous precedent to tell your state (or local or national) government that they have the go-ahead to ignore a group's rights. Perhaps more people just need a better imagination; I can clearly picture this coming back to bite me in the butt later on a different issue.
Does anyone get what I'm saying here? This was not so eloquently put.
mouthful, I completely get what you're saying, and you're right in that measure. That's definitely another way to look at it, and probably one of the best arguments to use in winning over public support. Someone needs to drop a line to the Log Cabin Republicans (can't be me, whole thing about misconstruing my opinion as DA's view).
I think one of the reasons for Prop 8 was to bring out a heavier vote from the right. Prop 8 is a much more emotional subject with the Christian conservatives than many other groups. By bringing them out to vote also got them to vote for other things that the Republicans wanted. (candidates, public questions, etc.) I guess their thinking was "same sex marriage be damned". "We need a larger turnout to pass our other priorities". This was a very effective tactic used by the Rovians in previous elections. This also helped the vote count for G.W. Bush. I mean no offense to our Republican friends on this forum, it is just an effective political tactic. I'm sure the Dems have used similar tactics as well.
Hopefully they will come to their senses and repeal this. It really is the legalization of discrimination.
Simon, the common theory is that Obama will be responsible for appointing 2-3 judges (more than usual - sometimes entire 8-year administrations pass without nominating a single justice). That's how many are expected to retire in the next 4-8 years. Most of the justices expected to retire are from the more liberal side (Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens), so it's unlikely the balance will shift significantly (though I can hope that Scalia retires, can't I?)
This all makes me question the wisdom of submitting theoretical questions to the populace. Not only that, but also the wisdom of allowing the legislative bodies to exist that are not bound by strict ethical codes and armed with the responsibility of reviewing other members' ability to be fair and impartial.
Theoretically in some country somewhere at some time a law could be passed demanding that all Albanian Jews be rounded up and deprived of their property. (I think something like this, but on a larger scale, happened somewhere in Europe within the last 100 years or so.) Anyhow, once these people were rounded up and deprived of all their rights, who knows what might possibly happen next? A slippery slope, indeed! What right would I as a voter have to weigh in on consenting to this injustice?
Surely justice demands more from us than to allow our mean-spirited countrymen to steal people's right from them.
That's what I'm talking about!! Someone very public supporting overturning injustice, and challenging the bigots who voted it into law. Now, we start to see a foundation for a legal challenge.
Simon, you know as well as I do that humans are imperfect beings. But, when you have the majority of people deciding certain issues, then it usually works. However, this isn't one of them. That's also why I favor a Democratic Republic form of government, when key leaders can overturn the will of the people, under certain circumstances and following a restrictive method that keeps the balance of power. Obviously, had it been the will of the people, then Jim Crow laws enacted to keep black people from voting would still be in effect. Like I said before, there is a right way to go about things, and a wrong way. If I were a civilian, I wouldn't need someone running every aspect of my life for me, and I think the legal processes should be restricted by a similar process.
I love your optimism, Bushi. Unfortunately, as you rightly point out, a democratic vote does not guarantee a good or humane outcome. Remember 1938 in Austria.
Comments
Civil Rights has always been a long and painful process. But that is because the minority groups that pursued civil rights and succeeded knew that trying to overthrow the very principle of "self-determination" would only bring about a backlash against them for eroding the rights that matter to everyone.
Prop 8 doesn't just have to do with a specific group's rights. I know people feel very secure when they are in the majority and are sure they are right, but I think complacent is a better term. People who voted for Prop 8 actually told the government they were okay with the state limiting people's right to marry. I think it's a dangerous precedent to tell your state (or local or national) government that they have the go-ahead to ignore a group's rights. Perhaps more people just need a better imagination; I can clearly picture this coming back to bite me in the butt later on a different issue.
Does anyone get what I'm saying here? This was not so eloquently put.
Hopefully they will come to their senses and repeal this. It really is the legalization of discrimination.
See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5100064.ece
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY
This all makes me question the wisdom of submitting theoretical questions to the populace. Not only that, but also the wisdom of allowing the legislative bodies to exist that are not bound by strict ethical codes and armed with the responsibility of reviewing other members' ability to be fair and impartial.
Theoretically in some country somewhere at some time a law could be passed demanding that all Albanian Jews be rounded up and deprived of their property. (I think something like this, but on a larger scale, happened somewhere in Europe within the last 100 years or so.) Anyhow, once these people were rounded up and deprived of all their rights, who knows what might possibly happen next? A slippery slope, indeed! What right would I as a voter have to weigh in on consenting to this injustice?
Surely justice demands more from us than to allow our mean-spirited countrymen to steal people's right from them.
I think Keith Olbermann said all this and more.