- The man who was recently reported to be caught trying to bring down a commercial airplane with an underwear bomb was actually a CIA double agent working with U.S. and Saudi authorities (Fox News): http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/08/al-qaeda-bomber-was-cia-informant-officials-say/
- The longest serving republican member of the Senate, Richard Lugar, lost his primary battle with freshman Tea-Party backed candidate Richard Murdoch (ABC News) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/mourdock-defeats-lugar-in-indiana/
- Poll shows support for the U.S. led war effort in Afghanistan is at an all-time low (Yahoo!): http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-support-afghan-war-low-060949461.html
- Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett won his party's nomination and is now set to run against Scott Walker in Wisconsin's recall election next month (CBS News): http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57430521-503544/barrett-set-to-face-walker-in-wisconsin-recall-election/?tag=stack
*** Be sure to vote in the new weekly LME April Jobs poll on the left ***
I have a really busy day today and I hope I can write more later but I am truly disgusted by North Carolina. I'm hopeful the courts will ultimately strike down this amendment as discriminatory. These, presumably, bible banging, holier than thou hate mongers sicken me and are, in my opinion, an embarrasment to freedom and equality, the foundation of America . I find their actions to be reprehensible and un-American and I truly cannot understand why anyone, let alone a state majority, would feel the need to express such spite through documentation that is meant to protect us and, in part, to promote tolerance and understanding.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely disgusted!
sO you don't believe in people being able to self govern? I'm pro gay marriage as well, but I also believe in democracy. If people elect judges, people elect representative and people even vote directly on the laws under which they shall live, how can you be against that? This has nothing to do with "hate" at all. The people of NC have voted for the laws that govern their state. Do you think that the collective democratic process should be invalidated? Should people not be able to choose the laws that govern them, simply because there are a few or some or a group like you who simply don't like it? No. The people voted. They held a statewide vote and this is what they came up with. If you overturn this, you are overturning the will of the people.
ReplyDeleteI can't find the exact quote that I was looking for, but I found one similar. Do you not agree with:
Delete"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities." Ayn Rand
?
The 51% shouldn't be allowed to vote away the rights of the 49%; and for the most part our political system agrees. This is why we have three branches of government, which includes a Senate seated by the states and a House of Representatives seated by the population, and an electoral vote process, etc.
2 cases for why your argument falls apart.
Delete1. Who determines what the "rights" are? If a government is seated, from the beginning, the governed (in a democracy) decide "this is what we will agree on. We shall protect this and this and this." Over time this gets added and changed, as it did last night. The point is, rights are defined as the very freedoms and abilities of a citizen to do under the government, by the protection of the government. If the pilgrims wanted the right to murder a 3rd child (grave example, but showing a purpose) to be protected, they would have declared when they came here, that this is a right. If enough people VOTE on it (the consent of the governed) the governMENT that sits over those people will represent their wishes. As disgusting as it may seem, the government protects the RIGHTS the people decide on. Should the 51% be able? YES! That's democracy. What do you propose it gets replaced with? How can you tell the people "YOU have the power to decide how YOU are governed" but when they decide that, you want to take it away from them?
2. Under your system, which I agree with, 3 branches of government, Senate, house of R, electoral, if every politician ran under an anti-gay marriage platform (keep in mind I'm a pro gay marriage democrat, not from NC) and the country elected it's president through the electoral vote process, the senate, the house, and the president picked the judiciary, (again, the people picked all these politicians based on their anti-gay marriage stance), what would you do? Who would "protect the rights of the minority?"
The fact is, though I'm a democrat, and though I am for gay marriage, I am for DEMOCRACY. You cannot simply quote some libertarian nut author and override the will of the people. My examples are pretty valid. What say you?
Regarding majority vs minority, it is not an exclusively a ‘nut author libertarian’ principle. And in fact, the quote I was looking for was by I believe Thomas Jefferson.
Deletehttp://www.annenbergclassroom.org/term/majority-rule-and-minority-rights
http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php
Rule by majority has always been an issue of concern, even among the founding fathers. I’m hoping you’re not implying they’re all nuts? It is the basic equivalent of 'mob rule' when you have the situation of the 51% ruling away the rights of the 49%.
I’m surprised that the other posters on this blog haven’t come up to speak about this either, because I hear and see it referenced by the GOP all the time in how ‘people will elect leaders based on who promises them the most.’ Tax cuts for the rich, welfare program expansion, middle class tax cuts, etc, being examples of pandering to the ‘mob rule’ type thing.
Reductio ad absurdum doesn't do much to prove the point, either.
The idea is, this simply comes down to the fact that the legislation, principles, and rights of the people in our country are not decided by popular votes. There is not one single amendment, clause, or bill in our constitution that was decided by a popular vote of the country. They are all decided by a system of checks in balances between Congress (which has multiple layers in itself), the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.
When you bypass all of that to put an issue to popular vote, you are essentially bypassing every failsafe and check/balance our government has.
Unless you think our entire government structure should just be abandoned, and everything going forward should just be put to popular votes, I don’t understand how you can’t see something wrong with what amounts to a loophole in our legislative process?
Additionally, you have to keep in mind America is not a pure Democracy (which is what I just described). You seem to think we are. We are a Democratic Republic. The people don’t rule; the leaders the people elect rule.
You danced around it. Please answer this, sir:
Delete1. Who determines what the "rights" are? If a government is seated, from the beginning, the governed (in a democracy) decide "this is what we will agree on. We shall protect this and this and this." Over time this gets added and changed, as it did last night. The point is, rights are defined as the very freedoms and abilities of a citizen to do under the government, by the protection of the government. If the pilgrims wanted the right to murder a 3rd child (grave example, but showing a purpose) to be protected, they would have declared when they came here, that this is a right. If enough people VOTE on it (the consent of the governed) the governMENT that sits over those people will represent their wishes. As disgusting as it may seem, the government protects the RIGHTS the people decide on. Should the 51% be able? YES! That's democracy. What do you propose it gets replaced with? How can you tell the people "YOU have the power to decide how YOU are governed" but when they decide that, you want to take it away from them?
This too. Please don't dance around it. Answer it:
Delete2. Under your system, which I agree with, 3 branches of government, Senate, house of R, electoral, if every politician ran under an anti-gay marriage platform (keep in mind I'm a pro gay marriage democrat, not from NC) and the country elected it's president through the electoral vote process, the senate, the house, and the president picked the judiciary, (again, the people picked all these politicians based on their anti-gay marriage stance), what would you do? Who would "protect the rights of the minority?"
Who gives us our rights?
Seems you're dancing around my response too. :)
DeleteI already answered everything you said in my response. Just because it’s not bulleted, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Simple:
1. Those voted to represent our Democratic Republic; this is their job. They would not have a job if we merely brought everything to popular votes; which are not meant for major legislation. Otherwise, please enlighten me as to all the clauses, amendments, and bills in our Constitution that were added through popular vote (hint: none).
2. Same answer as #1.
Feel free to answer my questions now. :)
Also, I'm a bit confused at what your overall point is.
DeleteBecause the outcome of the vote was one way, anyone who believes it should've been the other way has no right to continue fighting for it? Or criticize the outcome? And should accept it as it is?
No part of how Democracies (or Republics/Democratic Republics) work follows that line of enforcement. I mean, of course that should be obvious, or otherwise we'd likely still have slaves, only men voting, segregation, etc, all of which were fought for many times before actually succeeding in producing legislation in its favor.
I believe I'm safe to assume that you're not questioning the right of people to continue fighting for what they believe in, or criticize the results... but I'm not sure exactly what you are saying if not that? That only citizens of NC have the right to judge?
It seems to me that homosexuals are focused on a word, not the rights. I don't really have an opinion for or against gay marriage, but, it seems that the "rights" part isn't the issue. Civil unions grant homosexuals the same rights as marriage. In fact, a marriage in the eyes of the government is a civil union: it's a contract. That's all it is. Marriage is in a church. If you marry someone, and you sign your marriage license, if you're heterosexual, you still entered a civil union in the eyes of the government. Homosexuals seem to be upset at this. States that allow the recognition of civil unions between homosexual couples give the EXACT same rights as states that allow same sex marriage. So why do homosexual couples want to be called "married" even if a civil union grants the same rights? Is it about the rights or the words?
ReplyDeleteWell, you have to keep in mind that not all states allow civil unions.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union_in_the_United_States
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
Marriage also has to be recognized across state lines, where as civil unions are subject to different state's regulations.
So no, it's not _just_ a name.
Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why the founders opted for a Representative Republic rather than a Democracy.
The key word is (in my opinion) is 'right'. Our rights are enumerated in the Constitution ... marriage is not one of them. Marriage is a religious concept that has been co-opted by the states in the form of a tax (marriage license fees.)It is NOT even a NATIONAL issue.
In today's society our specifically enumerated, 'inalienable rights' of ALL citizens are being twisted confused with the 'wants' of certain factions.
I'm pretty sure I'll get blasted... but as T.J. was invoked, he also said this:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Due to 'democratic rule' the Left has basically run rough shod over the 'Religious Right' for DECADES... the abortion issue is a prime example. When it was first legalized, there were very clear guidelines as to WHEN such a procedure was allowed to be performed - first trimester ONLY.
This has devolved over the years to include 'partial birth' and NOW there are 'scientists' promoting AFTER birth abortions, and having 'serious discussions' about what age (AFTER a baby is BORN) he/she actually 'becomes' a 'person'.
It's more of the old 'give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile' scenario.
I agree with Texas Tea. If gay people choose to live together, it's none of my (or anyone else's) business. The problem (again my opinion)lies in the word marriage, which is traditionally and BIBLICALLY a sacred union between one MAN and one WOMAN.
Over the last decade the left has invented a myriad of brand new words/phrases to promote their numerous and varied secular agenda... 'significant other' and 'life partner' in place of husband or wife, come to mind. To put an end to this...why don't they just create one for gay 'marriage'?
The answer: I don't believe they want to. Right or wrong, they seek instead to ram yet another piece of legislation through that belittles and/or demeans those rigid and crazy 'bible thumpers.'
Like it or not, our country was FOUNDED on Divine Providence. Personally, I believe THAT is THE reason grew into the GREAT nation that we are... and have survived and thrived as long as we have.
"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under." - Ronald Reagan
But these are just my opinions... I could be wrong. : )
Dara -
DeleteGood evening to you. Though I quite enjoy TJ, this issue, in my opinion has only to do with freedom and equality. There is the nuance of the language but it, the marriage issue, truly is a big deal. I am 'married' (to be honest, I'm not sure what my paperwork says - 'marriage' or 'civil union' or any other possibility it may be) and, with that, receive certain considerations throughout the country and, yes, by the federal government (you said it is not a national issue and, on that basis, I disagree). A marriage, in the common application and understanding of the word is a bond between two things that is meant to be unbroken. 'Marriage' is commonly used in terms of the relationship between a nut and a bolt. Though I agree that 'marriage' began as a religious event, it has evolved (sorry to use that term as I find it obnoxious in terms of Obama's evolution) to have a broader meaning to the broader public. In my opinion, to exclude two people from making that bond is solely discriminatory and, I believe it is borne of spite and/or ignorance and/or intolerance. The issue raises questions as to what is the definition of 'married/marriage' and who says who's allowed to do it. In my mind, we live in a free country and thus, 'marriage' in some concept is automatically a right otherwise it is discriminatory. I just don't see how woman a and man a can make an adult choice to marry while man a and man b and/or woman a and woman b cannot make the same consenting decision. We live in a country where adults are allowed to make decisions about their lives. Marriage is a life commitment made between two consenting adults regardless of sex. The only reason it has become an issue is because the government, on many levels, balked at inclusion which resulted in the GLTB community publicly seek equal rights. Of course, when the GLTB community comes out, many other hate and/or religious groups come out against. I honestly haven't heard a single sensible reason why GLTB couples should be unable to marry and have the same benefits as my wife and I enjoy.
That's my take, it's an issue where the nuance of language should be set aside and consenting adults should, in a free society, be allowed to make a choice to engage in a life commitment and have it recognized by all governments. Otherwise, the next step is to not recognize marriages between blacks, hispanics, irish, russian, chinese, etc.... There are no differences between the two forms of discrimination.
Hi Whatsamattausa
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to be gross or insensitive, but I think your 'nut and bolt' analogy 'nails' this issue dead center. It is, and always will be, physically impossible for bolt and a bolt to 'marry' - ditto a nut and a nut.
In my opinion, the GLBT 'community' already have equal rights, the same rights that are outlined for ALL Americans - in our Constitution. What they (and other 'communities') now seek are 'special' rights - defined specifically for them.
As I said, I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes or bedrooms. The 'shacking up' stigma went the way of platform shoes. Gay people can obtain powers of attorney and other legal documents that cover any and all benefits that are 'enjoyed' by heterosexual couples. Or, as I suggested, they could CALL their union something OTHER than marriage.
Legally, marriage IS a State issue and as such falls within State guidelines and controls. If it were not, we'd pay our marriage 'tax' (license fees) to the government, rather than the State. I too, am married. Our paperwork reads: Certificate of Marriage. Granted it's over forty years old, but I don't think it has changed in NV.
You said: "Otherwise, the next step is to not recognize marriages between blacks, hispanics, irish, russian, chinese, etc.... "
These have already been addressed. States who did erect those barriers have long since torn them down, so this a non-issue.
And what about the early Mormons, who were hunted down and even killed for their polygamous beliefs and activities? Today, polygamy in all forms, is still an illegal, criminal offense punishable by prison.
So, your argument would be: Two guys or two gals copulating is 'normal' while one guy doing so with two or more women is not? Two guys or gals should be allowed to marry, but it's illegal for one guy to marry more than one woman...hmmm... and just WHO makes THAT determination?
Following this same line of reasoning: State laws now determine the age at which one may marry. What if the 'pedophile community' or more realistically - the Muslim community should decide they want/demand THOSE laws revoked?
And before you scoff, the American Psychiatric Association has ALREADY lowered the standards by which they measure pedophiles... and have recently sought to officially reduce this 'condition' from a 'mental disorder' (like say...eating your neighbors liver with fava beans or... a sexual preference for little kids) - to a 'personality defect' (compulsive hand washing, nail biting or knuckle cracking) - and are actively working to decriminalize the act to misdemeanor status...AS WE SPEAK.
In that the initial, traditional REASON for marriage was procreation, a union between two people of the same sex CAN NOT constitute a marriage. This has nothing to do with discrimination or hate...left or right. It's not even a difference between gay and straight...
The difference is between Right and Wrong. Apparently the majority of citizens of about 32 states agree. Thirty three actually, as the citizens of California voted overwhelmingly AGAINST legalizing gay marriage, only to be overridden by a liberal, openly gay judge.