Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thud on February 05, 2004, 06:49:35 AM
-
I always assumed that the US also valued the division of powers, i.e. religious, justicial and political.
Why the hell is Bush (through the spokesman of the WH) communicating that he is deeply worried and wants to file an amendment that reverses the whole construction?
Without discussing the issue itself, don't you think that he crossed the line when he had his puppet state: "Judges and activists keep reviewing the legal state of marriage(..)"
Don't you agree that in a modern democracy politicians shouldn't be allowed to meddle with legal affairs?
-
I don't feel that activist Judges should try to circumnavigate the constitution. They are there to uphold the law, not create it.
-
Originally posted by Thud
I always assumed that the US also valued the division of powers, i.e. religious, justicial and political.
Why the hell is Bush (through the spokesman of the WH) communicating that he is deeply worried and wants to file an amendment that reverses the whole construction?
Without discussing the issue itself, don't you think that he crossed the line when he had his puppet state: "Judges and activists keep reviewing the legal state of marriage(..)"
Don't you agree that in a modern democracy politicians shouldn't be allowed to meddle with legal affairs?
Bush said
"If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Judges are increasingly in the habit of overriding the will of the democratically elected legislature to suit their own tastes. Bush is indicating that he would support a constitutional amendment which would prevent judges from imposing their own definition of marriage on the rest of the country. If laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman are unconstitutional, as this Massachusetts judge says, then a constitutional amendment is in order.
ra
-
Forcing cultural changes in sanctities embedded in our society by judges is a no-no IMO. And it appears my opinion on this subject would be a majority feeling...
Thirty-seven states have already passed laws or constitutional amendments banning gay nuptials, and Ohio is expected to join them within the week. Several conservative groups are already urging Congress and President Bush to pass a federal constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual institution, thus stripping states like Massachusetts of the right to define marriage within their own borders. Bush spoke favorably of the amendment in his recent State of the Union speech, but stopped short of endorsing the measure.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Without discussing the issue itself, don't you think that he crossed the line when he had his puppet state: "Judges and activists keep reviewing the legal state of marriage(..)"
THis is a perfectry correct statement. Our Judiciary is running amok usurping power never given to them by the Constitution. The worst part is, they are getting away with it.
Don't you agree that in a modern democracy politicians shouldn't be allowed to meddle with legal affairs?
You are surely jesting. It is the legislature's (politician's) job to make the laws. And making the law is none of the Judge's business.
-
Interesting how judicial activism seems synonymous with liberal ideology in this discussion, particularly where it applies to questions of marriage. Do you folks really oppose judicial activism... or just when it yields outcomes with which you disagree?
Activism does not confine itself to ideology. Scholars widely consider the Rehnquist court, for example, as following a strong activist, conservative agenda.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Interesting how judicial activism seems synonymous with liberal ideology in this discussion, particularly where it applies to questions of marriage. Do you folks really oppose judicial activism... or just when it yields outcomes with which you disagree?
Activism does not confine itself to ideology. Scholars widely consider the Rehnquist court, for example, as following a strong activist, conservative agenda.
-- Todd/Leviathn
You're spending too much time on the CATO institute website. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You're spending too much time on the CATO institute website. ;)
Nah. I would point anybody who's curious to work done by Jeffrey Segal and Harold Spaeth, particularly _The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model_.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by KUJIAZ
Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that activist judges tend to be liberal.
Or perhaps, as the preponderance of evidence suggests, judicial activism cuts both ways.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Of course "the alternative is the Constitutional process". It was set up that way. Checks and balances anyone?
Those old guys were smart.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Or perhaps, as the preponderance of evidence suggests, judicial activism cuts both ways.
-- Todd/Leviathn
What evidence are you referring to?
-
it's all good :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Martlet
What evidence are you referring to?
In particular I'm referring to data collected by Segal and Spaeth, though they have more than one distinct dataset. Others such as Lee Epstein have also collected data coinciding with attitudinal models of judicial behavior. I'm trying to see if I can find URL links to the data itself or at least a summarization of its contents.
Here's a link (http://www4.gvsu.edu/richardm/research/FreeCodebook3.doc) to a codebook for a dataset applying Segal and Spaeth's standards for free expression/first amendment cases. I can't find their massive dataset of Supreme Court decisions going back to the Vinson court, but it's out there somewhere, and I'm pretty sure they make it publically available.
It's important to note that liberal and conservative judicial activists tend to be activist on different types of issues. Conservatives, particularly in the Rehnquist court, focus on economic and states rights issues while liberal activists tend to favor civil liberties issues. Also, the Segal and Spaeth dataset does not come free from problems. Most notably, they form ideological distributions based on how justices voted over a number of years on cases that may divide along liberal or conservative outcomes. This is the same methodology employed by Poole and Rosenthal for their W-NOMINATE AND D-NOMINATE congressional ideology scores, but such methodology fails to account for strategic or non-ideological reasons for voting a particular way. Nonetheless, we have no evidence that conservatives or liberals alone engage in exclusively strategic behavior.
I believe Isaac Unah here at UNC works on state and lower federal courts rather than just the Supreme Court. When I was working with him, he was examining ideological behavior in international courts of trade.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Judicial activism may or may not root in both camps. I don't have information either way, and haven't been arsed to look for it.
I don't see where you have any "prepoderance of the evidence" to support your claim, though. You suggest liberal activist judges tend to rule more on civil liberty issues, then you provide information in an attempt to support that claim. I've yet to see the "preponderance of the evidence" to ground the same argument with conservatives.
-
lol i cant believe this will end up being an issue in the next election. Hilarious. bush is just pandering to the hard core right wing voters. most americans could care less about this issue. If it dosnt affect me why should i care if two girls get married. they are not asking me to marry them.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
lol i cant believe this will end up being an issue in the next election. Hilarious. bush is just pandering to the hard core right wing voters. most americans could care less about this issue. If it dosnt affect me why should i care if two girls get married. they are not asking me to marry them.
That's complete fallacy. In MA, a notoriously liberal state, the latest zogby poll showed 69% of the voting population wants an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Of that 69%, it's split about 50/50 for and against. While I can't speak to what "most Americans" care about, the poll indicates that "most MA voters" do in fact care.
-
Its an issue that shouldnt become an admendment. It is these people constitutional right to proclaim they are married according to that court. I would rather see what other courts have to say about it, and see if they support their arguement.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I don't see where you have any "prepoderance of the evidence" to support your claim, though. You suggest liberal activist judges tend to rule more on civil liberty issues, then you provide information in an attempt to support that claim. I've yet to see the "preponderance of the evidence" to ground the same argument with conservatives.
I'm not going to run a data analysis on this data for you; I certainly don't have time for that. You asked for the data, and I provided you with links to datasets and to scholars who would provide data that you can refute or agree with as much as you'd like. When I find the actual complete dataset from Segal and Spaeth, if it's publically available, I'll link you to that as well. Run some analyses on it and come to your own conclusions. Analyses by Segal, Spaeth, Epstein, and others conclude that conservative activists and liberal activists tend to gravitate (though not exclusively) toward different issue domains. They nonetheless remain activist.
Paging through _The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model_, I came across a table on page 309 that fits along with this reasoning. In cases classified as "state, anti-union" from 1981 to 1989, conservative justices overwhelming voted in a conservative manner (Rehnquist voted ideologically conservative on 100% of those cases; Scalia 100%; O'Connor 80%; Brennan and Marshall 0%). Make of it what you will.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
You mean the same kooky judges that are trying to strip God from the Pledge of Allegiance are going to loose their uber powers...and have to uphold laws and not redefine the world into their own vision? WOW... :p
-
Sorry to ruffle your feathers. You made the claim "proponderance of the evidence", so I assumed you actually had some "evidence".
Silly me.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Its an issue that shouldnt become an admendment. It is these people constitutional right to proclaim they are married according to that court. I would rather see what other courts have to say about it, and see if they support their arguement.
So, citizens shouldn't have the right to amend the constitution?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sorry to ruffle your feathers. You made the claim "proponderance of the evidence", so I assumed you actually had some "evidence".
Reading is not your strong suit obviously.
I have provided the name of a book and the names of numerous scholars who have written on this matter. I could link you to journal articles as well if you'd like, though they may not be publically available without subscriptions to the journals in question. I have described datasets and findings and linked you to what I have been able to find available on the various websites, and I have offered to link you to further datasets. I have summarized the findings of court researchers in this area as well.
If you're expecting a literature review at this point, you're not going to get one. I've provided plenty of information to draw your own conclusions. You, however, have contributed... well, as usual, nothing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
They should have the right, but i just think this issue is silly. Just a personal opinion. The question is will there be enough votes to admend it. I cant remember the numbers exactly but it takes a good majority of the people to be able to do it.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Reading is not your strong suit obviously.
I've provided substantiation for every claim I've made. I'm still waiting for yours. I guess when you have none, it's easier to hurl insults and stamp your feet.
-
This looks like it could be useful.
Harold Spaeth provides a wealth of data on his website. These (http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Class/pol434/data.htm) are all in SPSS portable format.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I've provided substantiation for every claim I've made. I'm still waiting for yours. I guess when you have none, it's easier to hurl insults and stamp your feet.
Substantiated what claims? You haven't claimed anything other than to attempt to poke and prod at a massive amount of evidence I've provided for you to browse through.
Sorry, I don't stamp my feet over a bulletin board. Again, the data is all there for you. By all means use it or simply claim victory and ignore it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Substantiated what claims? You haven't claimed anything other than to attempt to poke and prod at a massive amount of evidence I've provided for you to browse through.
Sorry, I don't stamp my feet over a bulletin board. Again, the data is all there for you. By all means use it or simply claim victory and ignore it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
You've provided a wealth of evidence. Unfortunately, none of it substantiates your claim of conservative judge activists. Is that your new tactic? Bury someone in information that proves nothing, in hopes they'll lose interest digging? If you have such a "propoderance of evidence", how about just point out a few specific instances?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You've provided a wealth of evidence. Unfortunately, none of it substantiates your claim of conservative judge activists. Is that your new tactic? Bury someone in information that proves nothing, in hopes they'll lose interest digging? If you have such a "propoderance of evidence", how about just point out a few specific instances?
My "new" tactic? I'm providing you with all of the information you need to draw your own conclusions. It's unfortunate that you don't feel the need to look at it yourself before drawing the conclusion that it "proves nothing;" even more unfortunate that you would lose interest in doing so.
I even pointed you to a specific table in the Segal and Spaeth book that substantiates a cleavage between conservative and liberal members of the court on states rights issues. If a majority of court members hold conservative ideologies, you're going to encounter overwhelmingly conservative outcomes. If you argue that somehow conservative justices provide a more accurate constitutional interpretation than liberal justices, you're going to need to substantiate that with proof of your own.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
You see martlet has is beliefs and wont stray from them. Its called military brain washing.
No critical thinking here sir!
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
You see martlet has is beliefs and wont stray from them. Its called military brain washing.
No critical thinking here sir!
Yeah, that's what it is. Just like your "most American's" spiel.
My point is, Conservative judges and Conservative rulings does not a judicial activist make. We aren't speaking about ruling slant, we're speaking of activism. You said there was a "proponderance of the evidence". I haven't seen it. I didn't see a single instance of it in the information you provided. If it's there, point it out.
-
In addition, I think I linked to this (http://www.sunysb.edu/polsci/jsegal/data/pressc_main.htm) page before. If not, my apologies. Scroll down and you'll see data pertaining to Supreme Court justices from 1937 to 1994 broken down by issue area. Here's a direct link (http://www.sunysb.edu/polsci/jsegal/data/sccareer.htm) to some of the data in question.
Clearly liberalism in both civil liberties and ecnomics depend on ideology. However, conservative members of the Court, particulary in the last 20 years, remain somewhat conservative to strongly conservative on economic issues and very strongly conservative on civil liberties issues. Give them a majority and what do you get?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Your not understanding martlet. Conservititve judges tend to be 'activists' when it comes to economic ruleings, while liberal judges will be activists when it comes to social issues( which in turn get more publicity).
-
It seems Marlet and I disagree about the definition of judicial activism. Fair enough. I would consider activism to be any judicial activity that substantially alters the status quo. Activism need not run contrary to popular opinion, and indeed it often coincides with it. Marlet, do you deny that the Warren or Burger Courts substantially altered the judicial landscape? Do you deny that the Rehnquist Court did the same in retrospect?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
It seems Marlet and I disagree about the definition of judicial activism. Fair enough. I would consider activism to be any judicial activity that substantially alters the status quo. Activism need not run contrary to popular opinion, and indeed it often coincides with it. Marlet, do you deny that the Warren or Burger Courts substantially altered the judicial landscape? Do you deny that the Rehnquist Court did the same in retrospect?
-- Todd/Leviathn
Not in precedent. I think you are correct in stating we disagree on how judicial activism is defined.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Your not understanding martlet. Conservititve judges tend to be 'activists' when it comes to economic ruleings, while liberal judges will be activists when it comes to social issues( which in turn get more publicity).
I believe granting writs of certiorari also varies by court. A conservative, activist court tends to review more economic cases than civil liberties cases. I believe Spaeth has a dataset along those lines, but I admit to not being very familiar with it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Not in precedent.
The funny thing about precedent is that justices, both liberal and conservative, tend to choose different cases that support their particular lines of reasoning. In both cases, they offer precedents supporting their positions. I'm sure the justices in Massachusetts referred to many equal protection cases when coming to their decision. The law is really so nebulous and broad that any ideology or position draws support from some form of precedent or historical fact.
That's kind of a frightening thought, but it bears out in just about every Supreme Court case you read. Both those in the majority and those in the minority offer arguments supported by substantial amounts of case evidence.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
The funny thing about precedent is that justices, both liberal and conservative, tend to choose different cases that support their particular lines of reasoning. In both cases, they offer precedents supporting their positions. I'm sure the justices in Massachussetts referred to many equal protection cases when coming to their decision. The law is really so nebulous and broad that any ideology or position draws support from some form of precedent or historical fact.
That's kind of a frightening thought, but it bears out in just about every Supreme Court case you read. Both those in the majority and those in the minority offer arguments supported by substantial amounts of case evidence.
-- Todd/Leviathn
I agree. Again, I think the meat of our disagreement is our interpretation of judicial activism.
-
well at least Lord Dulf Vador can go to Mass. and have his star wars theme wedding were they both dress as storm troopers.
OOPS did that sound too gay?
just a joke not personal attack
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I'm not going to run a data analysis on this data for you;
Data analysis isn't even real, it's just something you liberal eggheads cooked up to make the rest of us feel stupid.
:mad:
-Sik
-
for some reason i was listening to rush on the way to school today. he was talking about this issue, and damn he has absolutely no idea how our legal system works in america.
-
what did he say?
-
That the voters of mass never voted for a bill allowing gay marriage. And that if a law is passed denying a gay marrige the judges will order the arrest of the people who passed the law.
Now im not going to explain how extremely stupid that statement is. I am going to assume you know enough about your own country to figure it out.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
That the voters of mass never voted for a bill allowing gay marriage. And that if a law is passed denying a gay marrige the judges will order the arrest of the people who passed the law.
Now im not going to explain how extremely stupid that statement is. I am going to assume you know enough about your own country to figure it out.
yup this is stupid. yet another example of judges creating laws that they are not constitionally allowed to create
-
okay gunslinger you just admited your ignorance of american law.
thankyou!
-
Frogman, apparently you don't understand what's happened. The SCoM has declared the assembly will construct law within 6 months providing for gay marriage, or the SCoM will do so itself. Does that sound right according to our Constitution?
Whew, for a second I thought it was judicial activists legislating from the bench. Or at least, that's what is sounds like when judges tell lawmakers to make a law, tells them exactly how to do it, and threatens to do so itself if the assembly doesn't comply.
-
What if I created the church of stiehl and started marrying 2 or more consenting adults to each other? Wouldn't that be as legitimate as having a rabbi or priest? By banning gay marriage, or not treating it as hetero marriage, you wouldn't be treating religions equally.
Maybe next we can pass an ammendment banning inter-racial marriages, I have a feeling that a lot of the same people for the anti-gay ammendment would be for that one.
Join the church of stiehl.
for the low price of $100, you Won't go to PORK,
where you will be forever chasing p51s while 190d9s BnZ you from above and LA7s rape you from behind
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Frogman, apparently you don't understand what's happened. The SCoM has declared the assembly will construct law within 6 months providing for gay marriage, or the SCoM will do so itself. Does that sound right according to our Constitution?
Whew, for a second I thought it was judicial activists legislating from the bench. Or at least, that's what is sounds like when judges tell lawmakers to make a law, tells them exactly how to do it, and threatens to do so itself if the assembly doesn't comply.
I don't recall that the U.S. system of checks and balances necessarily applies to state legislation. Massachusetts has its own constitution (http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm).
-
Originally posted by stiehl
What if I created the church of stiehl and started marrying 2 or more consenting adults to each other? Wouldn't that be as legitimate as having a rabbi or priest? By banning gay marriage, or not treating it as hetero marriage, you wouldn't be treating religions equally.
Maybe next we can pass an ammendment banning inter-racial marriages, I have a feeling that a lot of the same people for the anti-gay ammendment would be for that one.
You can be ordained here: http://www.ulc.org/ :aok
-
There is precedent for defining marriage...
Utah Trio Challenges State Laws Banning Polygamy
By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune
Three Utahns who want to live together legally as husband and wife and wife filed suit Monday against Salt Lake County clerks for refusing to issue a marriage license, challenging prohibitions in state law and the state constitution against bigamy and polygamy.
Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen said her office was merely following a state law that prohibits issuing a marriage license to anyone who has a husband or wife who is still living when they dealt with the trio.
"The law makes it very clear that they can't be married to more than one person," Swensen said. "We're here issuing licenses according to the law."
-
Maybe next we can pass an ammendment banning inter-racial marriages, I have a feeling that a lot of the same people for the anti-gay ammendment would be for that one.
And you would be pretty ignorant, too.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't recall that the U.S. system of checks and balances necessarily applies to state legislation. Massachusetts has its own constitution (http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm).
Well then if I understand you, you are perfectly fine with the court telling the legislature to make a law, what the law should say, and threaten the legislature to do so itself if the legislature declines? That doesn't bother you at all?
It does me- a lot. It kinda means it doesn't matter who I vote for, or what the majority of people think. It means the power of the law passes to a select few.
But that's okay? I know you can't be saying that...
-
Originally posted by stiehl
By banning gay marriage, or not treating it as hetero marriage, you wouldn't be treating religions equally.
Maybe next we can pass an ammendment banning inter-racial marriages, I have a feeling that a lot of the same people for the anti-gay ammendment would be for that one.
so how long have you had the desire to marry a black man?
-
Ah, but any situation like this can be escalated to the National Constitutional level. For example, this can or might be challenged in the SC/US as "unconstitutional".
Or, if enough US Congressmen act an amendment to the US Constitution can be offered which then makes it a "national" issue.
So, there are some checks on the States at the National level. Anything can eventually work it's way to the highest court in the land or any amendment can be attempted.
Note the old guys made this amendment stuff pretty hard to do; a good thing in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Well then if I understand you, you are perfectly fine with the court telling the legislature to make a law, what the law should say, and threaten the legislature to do so itself if the legislature declines? That doesn't bother you at all?
It does me- a lot. It kinda means it doesn't matter who I vote for, or what the majority of people think. It means the power of the law passes to a select few.
But that's okay? I know you can't be saying that...
If it were the US Supreme court doing it, then it would bother me. But since it's the Mass. court, what's the big deal? If that state's constitution is written to allow judicial lawmaking, or it has been established there through precedent, it doesn't affect you in Indiana or me in Michigan. It sounds like they're playing by their rules, so let them.
If you're worried about the effect spilling over to the nation as a whole, then your problem should be with the Federal system that allows it to spill over, not with the state system that is doing things according to its rules.
-
Absolutely right, Tarmac. Massachusetts is not part of the US, er... okay, it is. What happens there does matter to me if it has a potential impact on me in my state. In this case... it does.
-
I fully support your right to object if this Massachusetts issue if it affects you - I was more trying to point out that it probably shouldn't affect you, Constitutionally speaking.
That's the problem here - that it will affect you. Not that they're doing something a few hundred miles away that you don't agree with.
-
I agree. But I think it needs to have the spotlight shown on it, and it needs to be fought every step of the way.
I wouldn't be happy with the situation if the people of Massachusetts voted for gay marriage, but at least then it would be the majority speaking. This is doubly bad when majority rule doesn't matter. Triply worse because the precedent it sets. In short, from my perspective there is nothing good coming out of this.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
In short, from my perspective there is nothing good coming out of this.
Except that two consenting adults may be able to have the same rights and priveleges in the government's eyes as two other consenting adults.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Except that two consenting adults may be able to have the same rights and priveleges in the government's eyes as two other consenting adults.
they already do.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
so how long have you had the desire to marry a black man?
Technically, I'm considered to be one.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Except that two consenting adults may be able to have the same rights and priveleges in the government's eyes as two other consenting adults.
I said "from my perspective". I'm religious. The gay marriage thing isn't good from that perspective.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Except that two consenting adults may be able to have the same rights and priveleges in the government's eyes as two other consenting adults.
American citizens being treated equally, what a novel concept
-
Has anyone studied the financial cascade that would follow if indeed gay marriages would be considered legal? I would imagine alot of male spouses would then be eligible for spousal benefits, medical, medicare, social security, dental. I'm curious as to what financial effect that would have on business.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
they already do.
Well ****, what's this whole debate about then? If gays are allowed to own joint property, file tax returns together, and legally commit to a relationship in the eyes of the state, what is everyone whining about?
Originally posted by Kieran
I said "from my perspective". I'm religious. The gay marriage thing isn't good from that perspective.
Fair enough. But why is it necessary to coerce your definition of good on others?
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Well ****, what's this whole debate about then? If gays are allowed to own joint property, file tax returns together, and legally commit to a relationship in the eyes of the state, what is everyone whining about?
Fair enough. But why is it necessary to coerce your definition of good on others?
They're "whining" about legislating from the bench. Are you having trouble following along?
-
Not at all. I felt that I addressed that issue in my first few posts in this thread.
If the means are unconstitutional, then I oppose the action. I'm more interested in those that hold different views about the ends.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Not at all. I felt that I addressed that issue in my first few posts in this thread.
If the means are unconstitutional, then I oppose the action. I'm more interested in those that hold different views about the ends.
Ah. I don't really care about the "ends" on this particular subject. In fact, I wish they'd make heterosexual marriage illegal. That would really take the pressure off me.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ah. I don't really care about the "ends" on this particular subject. In fact, I wish they'd make heterosexual marriage illegal. That would really take the pressure off me.
Good luck with that one. :)
-
Fair enough. But why is it necessary to coerce your definition of good on others?
As far as I can tell, I am not coercing anyone to do anything. I have a view on a topic, it's an issue about American social life. As such, it should be debated, then voted upon in an assembly before a law either way is passed upon it. IF that vote goes against me, I live with it, albeit unhappily. If I win, others will be unhappy. That's democracy.
What's happening in Massachusetts is not democracy.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
As far as I can tell, I am not coercing anyone to do anything.
You are not directly coercing them, but democratic coercion is still coercion. Voting for, or asking your representative to vote for, a ban on gay marriage is asking the government to coerce in your name.
That's why we have constitutional protections, and judicial oversight (although I agree to a large extent on your objection to judicial lawmaking) - because what the majority wants is not necessarily what's right.
-
We disagree on the issue of gay marriage, little doubt. That's cool. Given the opportunity I'll vote against it every time. You can vote for it. I'll live with the results either way, so will you. Nothing to fight about on that score.
I can't wait for a genetic link to pedophilia to be found... (jerks line, makes the jig dance up and down...)
-
:)
Jig? Makes me feel like Riverdancin!
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
You are not directly coercing them, but democratic coercion is still coercion. Voting for, or asking your representative to vote for, a ban on gay marriage is asking the government to coerce in your name.
That's why we have constitutional protections, and judicial oversight (although I agree to a large extent on your objection to judicial lawmaking) - because what the majority wants is not necessarily what's right.
But they make provision to not cater to the extreme minority. That is right. That's why the amendment must obtain successive 25% votes in the house, then 2/3rds in the referendum.