Frank Sidney Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Yes, in this case it absolutely is. Democracy is not 'lets make every single law that can get a majority vote', the founding fathers of the US spoke out explicitly against that kind of system, John Adams spoke of the 'tyranny of the majority' as being something that needed to be guarded against. This not about minorities ruling, this is about not letting the majority deny the rights of the minority. It's exactly the kind of problem the US was set up to avoid. The US was first colonised by people who no longer wanted to be persecuted for belonging to religious minorites. If the majority of people voted that black people shouldn't be allowed to get jobs, then should the minority rule on that one? Trouble is if the politicians don't do as the majority want they'll not get elected... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Trouble is if the politicians don't do as the majority want they'll not get elected... Sadly true . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 When I was young and growing up in Sheffield people got chucked in jail for being homosexual. There was no liberal attitude back then. One of our scoutmasters got kicked out for trying to do things to one of the scouts and when the neighbourhood found out they were mad enough to want to string him up from a street light. So you think a paedophile who molests boys is the same thing as a gay man? Do you also think that a padedophile who molests girls is the same thing as a hetrosexual men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Come on, Harleyman - be realistic! Obama is the president of the Untied States - Nobody is going to think that anything he says in public (or in private either for that matter - if they can hear it) is 'the opinion of an ordinary citizen.' Obama is no fool. I've no doubt that he thinks (or his advisors think) that the votes he may lose from the Southern Baptists will be far outweighed by the money he will receive from the 'Lavender league' (notably in California.) Many Southern voters are (apparently) disenchanted with him. They've got votes, but they don't have a lot of cash. I read that his election budget is likely to be in excess of One Billion dollars. Somebody is going to have to put up the money and his comments may loosen a few purse strings. I cant figure out if Obama's comments on gay marriage were sincere or merely a cynical ploy to garner more votes. Politicians are an amusing lot and election campaigns always turn into three ringed circuses. Barnum and Bailey would have been highly impressed if they were still around. I reckon Obama has gambled on "losing some but gaining more" while Romney seems to be caught like the deer in the headlights which happens when a chronic waffler sees a situation where he's damned if he does and damned if he doesnt. He could only muster a somewhat subdued comment that "marriage should be between a man and a woman" while recently addressing students at a religiously conservative university which subscribes to the opinion that Mormonism is a cult and not a Christian religion. If he wins in 2012 and runs for another term in 2016 and polls show that he's neck and neck with his opponent look for a sea change on his views on gay marriage. That old song "bend me, shape me anyway you want me" comes to mind. I'm no fan of Ron Paul but I have to give the man credit for speaking what's really on his mind and damn the consequences. Diogenes would have been proud of him but Paul has faded away like the cat in Alice in Wonderland. Anyway you know as well as I that only an amendment to the constitution will bring about universal recognition of the right of same sex couples to wed legally and the religiously conservative will fight back with all the zeal that they can muster and the battle will be a long and hard one and extremely divisive. The amendment will happen I believe and indications are that the younger generation are quite willing to accept the idea of same sex marriage but in the meantime we're all going to be bludgeoned to death with it for the next decade or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Yes, in this case it absolutely is. Democracy is not 'lets make every single law that can get a majority vote', the founding fathers of the US spoke out explicitly against that kind of system, John Adams spoke of the 'tyranny of the majority' as being something that needed to be guarded against.This not about minorities ruling, this is about not letting the majority deny the rights of the minority. It's exactly the kind of problem the US was set up to avoid. The US was first colonised by people who no longer wanted to be persecuted for belonging to religious minorites. If the majority of people voted that black people shouldn't be allowed to get jobs, then should the minority rule on that one? I wonder what Jefferson and Adams would have thought about people of the same sex seeking the right to be legally wed.? Is quoting from people with 18th century minds relevent or irrelevent from a 21st century point of view? If someone could have played a Shug Knight Rap number for Adams he would have probably had a screaming fit and denounced it as a work of the devil. Ben Franklin might have been highly impressed with the power of electricity to light a building though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Could you name an issue that every citizen of the USA agrees on. That members of congress are overpaid scoundrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Could you name an issue that every citizen of the USA agrees on. That members of congress are overpaid scoundrels. lol but not the members themselves and their families, presumably? So not quite all? Happy Mother's Day, Sierra! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 lol but not the members themselves and their families, presumably? So not quite all? Happy Mother's Day, Sierra! Well, hopefully not all. Thank you ruby! I am going to enjoy myself thoroughly today. First, I called my mother. Then, I read the paper, from front to back including all the ads. Then I made myself an omelet I get dinner out) and left the dirty pan on the stove. And I am going to sit in front of this computer until I feel like getting up. Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 What the hell does that have to do with; A) Same sex marriage ? B) Gay people in general ? The old queens who used to hang around a pub in Woolwich, London near where I was stationed trying to hit on the soldier boys. Tha's stiil a yoong pup and tha aint seen half o' wot I seen lad. I'm not a phobe, not trying to generalize so dont get into a hiissy fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 But they are not. (I'm playing 'Devil's Advocate' here. Remember: To be lawful, a law has to have been enacted properly. - There is no requirement for a law to be 'fair'.) Homosexual people are allowed to enter into marriages with people of the opposite sex (vide Elton John). Two heterosexual people of different sex (who are not involved in a sexual relationship) are allowed to live together without being married. Two people of the same sex (who are not involved in a sexual relationship) are allowed to live together without being married. Two homosexual people who are involved in a sexual relationship are allowed to live together without being married. In each case, they are treated as being unmarried. - Because they are unmarried. Of course laws aren't fair, and some people don't get that. But two same sex adults who want to formally legalize their relationship should be able to. At the very least a civil union of some sort. Money certainly comes into it. In a case where a married man is killed in a work accident (for example) then his wife will probably receive a pension. If he was unmarried but living with another man, or unmarried and living with a woman then the surviving 'partner' would get nothing. AFAIK, it's the same with State pensions. My husband's employer (which, if I said the name here, everyone would recognize immediately) has started requiring 'verification', in order for dependents to receive benefits. What they want is a copy of a valid marriage, birth or adoption certificate, else the dependent will have their coverage dropped. This was more of an annoyance than a problem for us because we aren't attempting to scam the company, and because I'm somewhat anal retentive and save every scrap of paper. God help anyone who was either born or married in another country and they can't get the necessary paperwork. He's worked for them 20+ years now, and they have NEVER , ever, asked for birth certificates, etc. My guess is that they're trying to trim the rolls and some people are going to find themselves without benefits. George Bush was criticised [unfairly, IMO] for being slow to send Federal troops as relief workers into Louisiana immediately after Hurricane Katrina struck. Legally, he couldn't do so. Had he sent Federal troops into Louisiana then the Federal government would have been 'invading' a sovereign state. - He had to wait until the governor of Louisiana gave him permission to send in troops. The blame for the slow response lay squarely with Governor Blanco. I've tried to explain this same thing before, but I didn't get very far. If my house were burglarized, it would be like me calling the FBI instead of my local police department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.