Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SCOUTER-Terry

America wins...

Recommended Posts

I just can't seem to figure out why anyone would think it a bad thing that a man of unusual ancestral background, amidst racial overtones, as he arises from the turmoil of an economic crisis, with oratorical eloquence and personal charisma, under the banner of national socialism, consolidating all governmental powers with the help of extensive media support be a threat to anyone.

 

Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps because "Live Free Or Die" is New Hampshire's state motto

 

 

Anyway, have a general observation. Obama is the President elect, his supporters say he won, the people have spoken and for those who supported McCain to just get over it and move on. And, they are right. Obama will be president, thats it case closed.

 

So, now, Prop 8 passed in California and there is talk about the ACLU getting involved and the proposition being termed unconstitutional et al.

 

What happened to the hey, the proposition "won", the people have spoken, its time to move on? If the people in California do not want same sex marriages to be recognized by the state, why involve the courts, when is the will of the people to be obeyed, Obama is president and when is it to be ignored, Prop 8?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Meanwhile, millions of dollars that could have served a better purpose has been squandered by both sides. How sad."

 

Careful skeptic, I just got accused of being a socialist for suggesting the same thing on another thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What happened to the hey, the proposition "won", the people have spoken, its time to move on? If the people in California do not want same sex marriages to be recognized by the state, why involve the courts, when is the will of the people to be obeyed, Obama is president and when is it to be ignored, Prop 8?"

 

Because some people feel that the civil rights of others are not something that everyone should be voting on in the first place. As I said, when do we get to vote on the validity of your marriage?

 

If the people of Pennsylvania "spoke" tomorrow and decided that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married, and that your marriage would now be void, your wife is a loose woman, and your children are bastards, would you personally (disregarding the fact that you are part of a 90% majority) sit back and accept it as the will of the people? I know I sure wouldn't.

 

The two things are not the same. Not by a long shot. Never before, to the best of my knowledge, has a right that a group of people already had, *been taken away* by a vote of the majority.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, da problem, DanKroh, is that they never had the "right" in the first place, eh?

 

Instead, they did the thing that Senator Obama cautioned against in his radio talk. They made manipulation of the courts, rather than convincing the hearts and minds of fellow citizens, their sole standard in the struggle.

 

The courts succumbed to the manipulation, eh? So the people rebuked the courts.

 

That's the nature of constitutional democracy. When yeh overreach, whether on gay marriage or the unitary executive, the people may call yeh on it.

 

What would be true tyranny is if the courts got to overrule the people on a constitutional issue.

 

Look for these new legal cases to go nowhere. Just people tyin' up the courts with frivolous cases to vent their spleen. Gay marriage is dead in California (and in every other state where it has been put on the ballot, so far as I know).

 

Beavah

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Yah, da problem, DanKroh, is that they never had the "right" in the first place, eh?"

 

So, by that logic, blacks and whites don't *really* have the right to marry each other in Virginia, because that was determined by the courts, never by the people, right?

 

edited to add: I should add that personally, I think going to the court is the wrong thing to do (regardless of whatever legal standing they think they have). I think patience is the key. As that older voting block dies off, so will the opposition to same-sex marriage. But I can also understand the impatience of not being willing to wait another 30 years.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DanKroh wrote

The two things are not the same. Not by a long shot. Never before, to the best of my knowledge, has a right that a group of people already had, *been taken away* by a vote of the majority.

 

I guess you've never heard of Prohibition (i.e. the 18th Amendment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, with a few states still uncounted, it's 62 million Americans and 6%. Maybe not a mandate, but he won by a larger margin than G. Bush.

 

Bigger that GW, but not bigger than GHW in 1998.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I guess you've never heard of Prohibition (i.e. the 18th Amendment)"

 

Ignoring the condescending tone, that did cross my mind, but I'm not sure I would consider drinking a "civil right" on the same scale as marriage.

 

But I'll give that one to you. After all, we all know how well taking away that right was received by the public.

 

Edited to add: Perhaps a better way of putting it would be: Never before, to the best of my knowledge, has a right that a group of people already had, *been taken away* by a vote of the majority, yet retained by another group. Marriage has only been taken away from a minority group, not everyone.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes so Stosh automatically forfeits, correct?

 

DanK, I'm sad to see that CA passed the proposition. But there are historical examples of rights being taken away. In some American colonies white women and free blacks of both genders were allowed to participate in politics on an equal footing with anybody else, provided that they met the other qualifying requirements (usually property and religious affiliation). Following independence women lost the right to vote in federal elections, as did blacks in some of the states. So while it is not unprecedented, I agree with you that it is still a very sad commentary on the mindset of the majority in CA.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H'mmmm maybe Whoopi does have something to worry about if she goes to VA. ;)

The thing that would change the minds of the majority quickest is if it cost them something to maintain this policy. As it is, most of the costs are borne by the minority. I agree, sad decision.

How long after the Civil War did it take African Americans to gain full civil rights? What did it take?

I'm fairly certain that if not for Federal influence, segregationists would still be a strong political force, at least in some states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 1992, the voters of Colorado approved an amendment to their state constitution that banned laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination.

 

In Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court overturned the amendment, stating that the people of the State of Colorado could NOT pass an amendment that took away any group of citizens rights away. It shouldn't be a surprise that Prop 8 is going to be challenged.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×