Because the electorate, by and large, are fools. The electorate have a long and inglorious history of being fools (and ignorant fools, what’s more). Take a look at the people’s reaction to women voting, to women working, to desegregation, the end of miscegenation, any anti-discriminatory policy, enforcement of SOCAS…the electorate have a long history of saying “We don’t have a fucking clue. Please don’t assume otherwise.”
Uhm bye then.
Did you forget to read the rest of my post? Namely the sentance immediately after. Does that not show that I would be vehemntly opposed to that legislation to the point of leaving the country of my birth? Do you not want another voice of opposition to something that horrid?
Your point is taken but I would like to point out that eventually the electorate did pass legislation for all of your examples. It might take longer than it should but it does happen and acceptance of gays is no different.
To get back to the point that started this tangent it will be a sad day in American history when the electorate voting on an issue is considered a bad thing.
Forgive me for wanting my rights recognized now (or, to be more accurate, several hundred years ago) rather than 30 years from now.
Were it up to the electorate, segregation and miscegenation would have been upheld considerably longer than they were. Lawrence would not have been overturned. I shudder to think what would have happened with Rosa Parks. Fortunately we have SCOTUS for these things. You contend that asking the teeming masses if a law is just or not is a good thing? 's why we have Justices.
Shit, really?
Have you got any record of the tallies on amendments one through ten? I’d like to know the total number of yeas and nays each of them got in the popular vote.
-Joe, used to be 6/5ths of a person, but is much better now
As I understand it, all it takes is like, ten signatures to get a new license plate approved in Virginia, which is why they have such an absurd number of choices. Why don’t the pro gay marriage folks in VA get started on having their own plates approved?
As I understand it, those days started back in 1786 or so when the Constitution was being drafted and the phrase “majority rule” was left out.
Because that would be “controversial,” much like those United Church of Christ ads.
So explain to me how some heterosexual homophobe in Fresno can vote to deny me the opportunity to legally marry, and that’s not his imposing his moral code on someone else?
As Bryan Ekers and others have already pointed out in this thread and countless others, having a three-branch system of government is not “circumventing the democratic process.” Your claim of majority rule is what’s endangering the democratic process. Democracy is a good idea because it makes sure that the people making the rules are held accountable for what they do, and everyone has a say in what’s going on. Leaving it up to the will of the electorate does not give minorities a say in what’s going on.
And you do a great disservice to a lot of us when you dismiss the fight for same-sex marriage as nothing more than getting upset when there’s a vote we don’t agree with. It’s not circumventing the system; it’s working within the system to make sure that everybody is treated fairly. Not just the majority. Everybody.
And frankly, fuck anybody who says otherwise. Fuck anybody who can’t understand the concept of a representative democracy, something that people over 250 years ago understood just fine, and try to claim that the fight for equal rights is nothing more than special interest and special treatment.
Funny that you mention ancient Greece in this thread. Yet another case of people hundreds of years ago having the right idea and us modern-day types just getting stupider and less enlightened.
And this was addressed to matt_mcl, not me, but what the hell, seeing as how I’m here and I’m gay and all:
Yes, you said that your example was an extreme and ridiculous one, and that you’d vote against it. A few things:
-
Sure your example is absurd, but so is saying that marriage is fine for the straights but wrong for the homos. And yet this absurdity is being written into law all over the country, and has plenty of people actually defending it. There are still laws against sodomy in place all over the country. There are still countries where you can get killed for being gay. People are always trotting these facts out as an example of how good it is for homos in America; I see them as examples of how bad it can get for homos in America.
-
There’s a reason why there are places where you can get killed for being gay. And it’s not just because there’s some despot who can do whatever he wants without getting voted out of office. It’s because there are millions of people there who don’t have a problem with it. When people say that gay rights should be left to a majority vote, they’re doing nothing more than spreading the blame.
-
You say you’d be willing to leave the country of your birth in vehement reaction against such a vote. Luckily, the framers of the Constitution put a system into place where I don’t have to leave the country of my birth whenever the electorate puts an unjust practice into place. Instead, I can work within the system to have that unjust practice overturned and make sure that I’m treated just as fairly as anyone else. I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t particularly feel like moving to Canada. All my friends live here, as does my boyfriend. I’d rather stay and make sure America’s a good place to be.
I don’t need one; in my country, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and race is forbidden by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as is proper - a protection against, and which can only be weakened by, your foolish idea of accepting the tyranny of the majority.
You’re welcome, I think.
Be careful, or we’ll catch up to you in state-sanctioned executions!
Does anybody think that this license plate is actually a good idea, from the perspective that it’s always a good thing when bigots identify themselves flat out, rather than making you guess?
Further, while I stand firmly opposed to the little pseudo-ecowarriors who think that they’re justified in vandalizing SUVs simply for their existence as SUVs, I would be more than thrilled if some activists printed up “I Am A Bigoted Jackass” bumper stickers (with really crappy, cheap glue that doesn’t come off easily) carried them around, and slapped them on any car they saw with a “protect marriage” license plate. 