I agree, but you can even take it a step further. If you explain to people how other people are bigots, rather than how they are bigots, that’s even more powerful. People love to self-identify as being morally superior, not morally inferior.
All the arguments against it I’ve heard seem to boil down to some combination of the following:
-
Gay sex is icky.
-
We shouldn’t be changing the definition of the word “marriage”.
-
The purpose of marriage is to have children.
-
Being raised by a same-sex couple is somehow detrimental to children.
My rebuttals:
-
So is old-people sex, fat-people sex, ugly-people sex, and your parents or grandparents having sex. We let all those people get married and stay married, even if it’s icky to imagine them having sex.
-
A linguist could tell you that words change their definitions all the time. The word “awful” originally meant “awe-inspiring”, but now it doesn’t. “Computer” had a very different meaning at the beginning of the 20th century than it does now.
-
We don’t ask straight couples getting married if they intend to or are able to have children and deny them a marriage license if they can’t or won’t have children. In fact, there are marriages that are only allowed if the couple cannot have children. You can marry your first cousin in Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Utah, or Wisconsin only if you are too old or otherwise unable to reproduce.
-
The American Psychological Association says there’s no evidence for this.
If you see a guy with a goatee, a green hoodie, and a t-shirt with little plastic army men on it, come over and say, “Hi.”
How is he going to see your t-shirt if you wear a hoodie, eh?
I really hope you’re kidding. Who gets to decide whether the opinion of The People is valid or not? Apparently you’ve got a better vantage point from your high horse of imagined intellectual superiority. This isn’t to say you’re a moron (in fact, I’ve enjoyed many of your posts over the years) but this opinion is completely ridiculous. Should we invalidate a vote simply because it isn’t “fair” to somebody? Fortunately nobody’s accusing me of bigotry here quite yet, because this issue to me really is not whether homosexuals should be able to marry or not - sexuality shouldn’t enter the realm of politics at all - but whether a vote by the people should be honored or not simply because you disagree with it. That many people seem to think it should be discarded, regardless of its content, strikes me as highly dangerous.
Whether you agree or not is immaterial, if you honor the system itself you cannot reject its decision.
Really? 'Cos, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what Democracy means. That whole “majority rules” thing. You, like it or not, at part of The People - and The People have spoken. Foolishly, perhaps, but they’ve spoken nonetheless.
I agree with you on the second point, however - it’s a shocking blow against tolerance, although as I’ve said I don’t find it surprising in the least.
This seemingly popular mindset that we get to be democratic, but only until it steps on your moral toes, is very frightening. I supported same-sex marriage in my state, and my .00013% contribution was tallied, but ultimately rejected, and as deplorable as I find the decision to be, I was forced to accept it. It would be hypocritical otherwise, and it’s mind-boggling that you don’t see it that way.
Except that I was responding to a comment that the Constitution didn’t ban same sex marriage. And I was responding to Rand Rover, who is exactly the sort who would take the attitude that if it’s not forbidden in the Constitution you have a right to stomp on people you don’t like. I was making the point that regardless of what the Constitution says ,it’s wrong.
Emphasis mine.
Wait a second. If you lose an election you just have to sit there and take it and not try to make a change for next time around?
So…George Bush till death then?
That’s not how it works. If you lose an election you fight to make sure you have a chance to fix things next time around.
That’s what our right to protest is all about. That’s why we have elections every few years (number of years depending on the office) instead of once a life time.
Democracy isn’t a one shot deal. We have a chance to try again. And when something is possibly illegal we have the responsibility to try to have it overturned in the courts. And when something is morally wrong but passes anyway we have the responsibility to protest until we are able to create change.
Hopefully someone will be along with a laundry list of historic precedents as to Supreme Courts overturning various decisions that were made by The People because they are unconstitutional either at the State or Federal level. I promise I’ll bookmark it and/or tattoo it somewhere on my body this time…
This is bigoted and completely indefensible. Of course it should be condemned.
And if this was a vote for re-instituting segregation, would you come in here and say “Suck it up and get to the back of the bus, black folks” ?
This is not supposed to be a mob-rule direct democracy with no protection for the minorities.
It’s called “civil rights”.
Obviously not. Where did I give that impression? Obviously things aren’t set in stone - I may not have endeared myself to the SDMB community lately but I’m not a complete moron. Of course I’m not implying that things can’t be changed - merely that you can’t invalidate a vote simply because you don’t like it.
Condemned and nullified are two different things. The attitude I’m getting from this thread is that people want the decision overturned; if something different is being implied I’m all ears.
I’d vote against it, is what I’d do. Unfortunately I don’t get to decide which votes get counted or not. Maybe somebody like you with perfect, morally unambiguous clairvoyance should do it instead. Clearly, though, I’m a huge racist.
The entire concept of a “protected class” is bigoted from the get-go. From what I’ve been reading on the subject, though, a lawsuit was filed two days ago in California. It asserts that this vote was an unlawful change of the state constitution - any major changes must first be filtered through the house of representatives first. If this turns out to be a valid claim, I will support it to my best, if limited, ability.
FWIW, I don’t think marriage should be a matter of government, either. It’s a fundamentally religious construct that, like most religious matters, remains archaic and rooted in a very different world - but that isn’t the issue here. Tromping all over democracy is.
I can give you a list of Constitutional Admendments that SCOTUS over threw= 0.
I didn’t say you were incorrect. I said the attitude was useless. It does little good to simply assert that it’s wrong – those who agree with you already know that; those that disagree aren’t going to be swayed by the base assertion. This is a campaign of PR, of persuasion, where the wrongness needs to be SHOWN, not simply claimed. Commercials showing a crying woman who isn’t permitted to visit her spouse in the hospital; a stunned couple learning that their marriage has vanished… real visceral images that drive the point home without insulting the other side – except by the obvious inference that their position has produced this misery.
Sorry, the emphasized portion of your quote (and that was the whole reason I edited back to add the emphasis) lead me to believe that you were suggesting that people shouldn’t be complaining or protesting. If you lose you deal with it. Sucks to be the loser.
If I was wrong, I apologize.
Is there a difference in your mind between obtaining the proper permits and staging a protest march, and blocking a public thoroughfare?
You know, when prop 8 was still in the petition stage I tried to help out a little bit. I did a day of helping the campaign by talking to people on the street about the issues and having them sign an “I vow to vote no” list.
And it sounds terrible that I didn’t help any further. I got busy with school, everyone I knew was on my side of the issue anyway, and it being a fairly liberal area, I didn’t fell like it was in danger. Not mention that, being straight, I felt it wasn’t my fight, that they may not want my help.
Then it passed, and I was upset and jolted back into reality about how a lot of people see the issue. I actually fought over it with my grandparents last night (I live with them). The more I thought about it, I thought less that they don’t want me around because I’m straight. I realized that this is the fight for my generation, and I can’t wait for someone else to do something that affects my friends so directly. I immediately called the local organization about helping now. I fell ashamed for not doing more when it could have made a difference.
Are people doing that?
Non peacful and illegal protests get into stickier situations, and I don’t know that I would be able to argue the point coherantly on a message board, especially since I have spelling issues that, no doubt, make me harder to take seriously.
I am just defending peoples desire to protest as being part of the democratic process. It’s built into our system of government for a reason.
No need to feel ashamed darlin. I spent some time thinking ‘What else could I have done? What if I volunteered more shifts on the phones? What if I gave more money?’ but it doesn’t do any good to think that way.
In the end all we can do is move on from here and do what we can to fix this incredible wrong.
I might have misinterpreted, but I believe that I saw (On TV) protesters in the street blocking traffic. If I am wrong I apologize.
Well in this particular case, I think that sort of protest will do the opposite of what is trying to be accomplished. Which is not to say that there isn’t necessarily a time and a place for that sort of thing, but I don’t think this is it.
I got a little sloppy with some of the details of my previous post, but precedents like Loving v. Virginia and Perez v. Sharp are examples of what I was trying to remember.