Printable View
Until the US Supreme Court steps in and says that it's unconstitutional to prevent gays from being married, the states are perfectly free to ban it or not. The voters of California decided this and to have politicians and judges reverse it is the height of arrogance.
This isn't even a comment on whether I think it is right or not, it's just acknowledging what the voters have decided.
[quote=Xiphos;399067]Until the US Supreme Court steps in and says that it's unconstitutional to prevent gays from being married, the states are perfectly free to ban it or not. The voters of California decided this and to have politicians and judges reverse it is the height of arrogance.quote]
Not to mention it is contrary to the 10th amendment.
The arguments for and against gay marriage are moot. The People have spoken. If you are gay and want to get married, go to Massachusetts.
If the will of the people simply meant that we should continue the debate, then I'd like to open the floor to debating the Presidency as well...
Really? Take another look at the abolishment of slavery and the desegregation of schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by deputysykes
Mob rule is what you're advocating. Like the old addage goes: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
The popular opinion doesn't mean it's the right opinion.
To everyone that says the majority should rule: Need I remind you that the US is NOT a democracy. We are a republic.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
One of my favorite quotes. Excellent. However, it absolutely doesn't apply to this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino
The people voted to refuse to recognize 'gay marriage', which is a phenom that has only existed as a point of debate for the last 10 years or so. Their decision wasn't to make gay marriage 'illegal', only discontinue government's recognition of it. Government (prior to the last few years never did previously 'officially recognize' marriages of same-sex couples, so, your argument that Prop 8 is a 'government intrusion' is fallacious... utterly. Proposition 8 is the will of the people by ballot. Do we wish to see the days when ballots do not matter, and the will of a minority 'ruling class' becomes the law of the land by default? Isn't that precisely what we fought against during the formation of this country, and what our founding father's sought to guard diligently against in the creation of our plan of government?
As a libertarian, I would think that your arguments demanding smaller government and less government intrusion would equate to the belief that the people's will should have control over government, and not the reverse. Here, it would appear to me that you wish government to completely ignore the will of the people.
That smacks of hypocrisy, that smacks of dictatorship, and that is absolutely counterproductive to good government. The freedom for gays to be recognized as 'married' does exist, just not by will of the people of California. If, indeed, a gay couple's demand to be 'recognized' is so great, relocation is the answer, not political shell games.
I will say though, that you have well-supported an often-held belief of mine -- that libertarians and third-party types, generally speaking -- seek avenues to push radical and hastily concieved, (yet often underlying and cloaked) agenda under the guise of personal liberties and limiting government... and that when given opportunity to further that agenda, they will bend and twist their own stated principles in order to gain higher political ground, much akin to the liberals you so renounce.
Reading comprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by PDawg
Prop 8 amended the State constitution, ergo - it can't be unconstitutional.
Rotsa ruck getting the SCOTUS to weigh in, they already left it with the States.
As for the Dred Scott comparison - well you reall wandered afield there. I fail to see what that SCOTUS case has to do with a constitutional amendment to a State constitution - unless you are pointing out that the 14th Amendment was enacted specifically to overrule Dred Scott - EXACTLY what just happened in California.
As for what should or should not happen, I'm keeping my counsel.
That's not the Libertarian viewpoint at all. Show me one place in the US Constitution that it says the majority rules. That's why we have checks and balances. That's why we have 3 branches of government. It's to make sure that although our voice is heard- the will of the majority isn't always carried out.Quote:
Originally Posted by countybear
If that were the case- how much longer do you think slavery or segregation would have continued?
The Libertarian viewpoint, in short, means the government should only be there to protect our rights and settle civil disputes. Those rights being the right to (and protect) our life, liberty, and property.
What smacks of dictatorship is a concept as simple as mob rule.
What if right now the majority of Americans decide countybear, for no reason at all, needed to be put down like a rabid animal? Maybe they don't like your opinions or they just think you smell funny?
What if the majority of americans believed that people with red hair should be made slaves? Or that people borns with disfigurements or disabilities should be put in internment camps?
When you speak of majority rule- you are speaking of mob rule. And that is about as un-American as you can get.
Was Proposition 215 mob rule as well? Or is it just un-American when Libertarians disagree with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino
Even though my grandson is gay I voted for prop 8 California recognizes domestic partners, Gay or straight just not gay marriages. One straight couple had to sue because after gay marriages were made legal a county clerk destroyed all the marriage licenses and had them reprinted party A and party B instead of bride and groom.
First off, I can't speak for every Libertarian any more than you can speak for every well, whatever political party you want to affiliate yourself with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiphos
But generally I, personally, disagree with any government law that tells two consenting adults what they can or cannot do as long as it doesn't infring on the life, liberty, or property of another person.
I notice how people are dancing around the slavery and segregation issues, by the way.
And again, I'm not saying I'm "pro-gay" or "anti-gay". My position, for clarity, is that it's not the government's right to interfere.
I wouldn't have as big of an issue of a city or county wanted to outlaw gay marriage- because it's easy to simply not live there. It's not as easy to just pick up and move to another state. But I don't live in CA so I guess I don't care as much about that- but it is illegal in my state and I disagree. It's also illegal in my state to have sex outside of marriage or have any type of sex other than penal-vaginal sex. Oral or anal sex is illegal here. And it's still illegal to buy alcohol on Sunday.
"Land of the Free" indeed.
If were just debating the topic of marriage, and this not meant to be a smart ass remark, but would you only not have an issue with two consenting adults???Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino
Would you also not think 3, 4, 12, 20, 100 consenting adults could be married as the same without infringing on the life, liberty, or property of another persons.
Why only two?
At what point would you draw a line??? Be it at that, or 2 adults, or 1 man and 1 woman???
Now for the other side of the debate... Look how the age of consent of marriage in this country has been redefined over time.
What was once thought of as perfectly normal (i.e. a 12 and 13 year old getting married) now disgusts us today.
At some point the laws were changed to accommodate an evolving society.
Mind you this is just a thought from both sides of the fence, not an attack on anyone's personal views.. This easily could be endlessly debated on both sides without ever a resolve.
How is that enforced? :eek: :doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino
I'm sure the enforcement of such laws in his state are self imposed for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenna
Maybe if he catches himself in the act of violating such laws hes required to punch himself in his own junk or something..... :confused:
:D
Public stonings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenna
Some members of this forum had better stay away from Georgia! :eek: :pQuote:
Originally Posted by maclean
Civics 101: the powers of government were divided into three bodies to prevent one body of government from gaining totalitarian powers over the people. "Checks and balances" were put in place as a means for the branches of government themselves to hold the other(s) in check, not for the government itself to hold the people in check. How incredible that a 'constitutionalist' party member could be so deluded as to its purpose and construction. The U.S. has a representative republican form of government, or as said often before, it is a democratic republic. The premise that election of candidates effectively ends the voice of the people in matters of government, is substantively flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino
I'll refer to The Declaration of Independence, (a document I would suppose you to be familiar with):
Learning of our history, and the often-orated beliefs of the founding fathers themselves, how could you possibly concieve otherwise, that our system of government was designed for the people's voices to be heard, not ignored, and for the government's powers to be limited? What does "deriving its powers from the consent of the governed" mean?Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Truthfully, not long, but because the people's will for these institutions to end, not because of the government's interventions. Although my premise for saying this is perhaps a topic for another day. Real, lasting, and substantive change occurrs by the will of the people, and the progress of the enlightenment of the masses, not by will of a government, nor by even the election of a President. There are those who claim that the election of an African-American president is historically significant, but the pathway to that point is the cause which motivated the effect, not the reverse. The government didn't elect Obama, the people did.Quote:
If that were the case- how much longer do you think slavery or segregation would have continued?
Slavery, as issue, became a cause of the greatest tests to our plan of government, that being the ability of the States to govern themselves, against the overbearance of federal powers. This matter is not at issue here. The USSC has delivered its opinion on the topic that we debate here, as Maclean so poignantly stated. The opinion of USSC was that this was a matter for the States to decide. Now then, how would the USSC consider the constitutionality of a State's decision to hold election of the people, then defy them by manipulation of the rule of law, for the purpose of pandering to a minority vote?
Perhaps the greatest 'right' of the people, is the right for their voices to be heard in a representative government. If, indeed, that is a view of the libertarians, it would seem that the core value would certainly be to demand government's responsiveness to the people, and not the subjection of the people to the whim of government.Quote:
The Libertarian viewpoint, in short, means the government should only be there to protect our rights and settle civil disputes. Those rights being the right to (and protect) our life, liberty, and property.
If you consider the majority of the voters of the State of California, 'a mob', then perhaps.Quote:
What smacks of dictatorship is a concept as simple as mob rule.
When you base a logical argument on an illogical supposition, you circumvent the credibility of your own reasoning. However, I'll go with it... why not?Quote:
What if right now the majority of Americans decide countybear, for no reason at all, needed to be put down like a rabid animal? Maybe they don't like your opinions or they just think you smell funny?
When a majority of Americans wish to deprive countybear of his 'right' to life, it is already constitutionally secured that countybear is entitled to due process of law. Thus, I must be given all possible means of defense, all reasonable doubt, and exhaust the appeals process before that right is forfeit. Its called the 'rule of law'.
But...
Proposition 8 isn't a deprivation of right, it is a refusal of recognition, and such is certainly not tantamount to a deprivation of life itself. Big difference.
See argument above, and please, you beleaguer the point. Beat another dead horse.Quote:
What if the majority of americans believed that people with red hair should be made slaves? Or that people borns with disfigurements or disabilities should be put in internment camps?
See above, again. Then, see it again... then, see it again... If you aren't by then convinced of just how utterly ridiculous this is, I give up.Quote:
When you speak of majority rule- you are speaking of mob rule. And that is about as un-American as you can get.
It is not enforced period. As far as I am aware the only population that such a law as adultery is enforced is those under the U.S. Military Uniform Code of Justice. Be all that you can be and don't sleep around. Especially if you are an officer and your partner is of a lower rank.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenna
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino
That's the entire crux of this thread. The people have made a decision and the government is threatening to interfere. The fact that you disagree with the people's decision has made it "mob rule" and in this instance you appear to be advocating government interference. Hence the question, "Is it only mob rule when you disagree?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino
I suppose it is just as the part of the First Amendment about right of "the people... to petition the government for a redress of grievances" is mob rule as well.
CB, it's not a dead horse. You're dodging the question. A representative government and majority rule are two different things. You still haven't shown me where the constitution says that the majority rules.
And if you don't think slavery or segregation would have continued in the south for much longer than it has, then I don't know what to tell you. I guess you never spent any time down here.
If majority ruled, then why even have a legislature at all? We could just put every law and amendment before the people directly and let them vote on it. We have representatives in DC to vote on issues because what's best for the people may not always be what the people want. The downside to this form of government is the reverse is also true.
I'm going in circles here. I'm shocked that so many so-called Republicans are trying to tell me the US is a Democracy. Astounded, really.
So, my parting and final thoughts: Don't take my word for it.