This is a post-election thread; feel free to discuss any of the recent election news, future election trends, etc., here.
Virginia and New Jersey: No surprises here. I don’t think these races indicate national trends, but I can’t blame Conservatives for grabbing on to any hope they can.
In the end, I think the single best thing the Democrats can do for 2010 is to get aggressive and desperate about improving the economic situation; for instance, with a big temporary cut in payroll taxes. But I doubt they’ll do it, since “gutsy” has never in my lifetime been something Democrats do well.
New York: Frankly, the Republican who was pushed out of the race — who was pro-choice and pro-marriage equality — really does seem out of step with the Republican base. For that reason, I think the Republican base in NY did the principled thing by rebelling, just as the Democratic base in Connecticut was right to rebel against being represented by Joe Lieberman.
Will this be really good for the Democrats in the end, as many Democrats are currently crowing? I don’t know.
Washington state: Huzzah for a victory on civil unions. Dammit that it was so close.
Maine
Maine should be the death of the claim that people don’t hate gays, they just hate being told what to do by the Courts. The folks who oppose equality have never cared about that, except as a pretext, so they could oppose equality while pretending not to be bigots.
The folks in Maine did everything the way they’re “supposed” to. They were polite, they were organized. They spent years building up support with face-to-face contacts. They went through the legislature, not the courts.
None of that makes any difference to the people who oppose equality. None of it ever did.
Quoting Andrew Sullivan:
The hard truth is: people are still afraid of this, and our opponents knew how to target their fears very precisely. They have honed it to an art – their prime argument now is that although adults can handle gay equality, children cannot. And so they play straight to heterosexuals whose personal comfort with gay people is fine but who sure don’t want their kids to turn out that way. One way to prevent kids turning out that way, the equality opponents argue, is to ensure that they never hear of gay people, except in a marginalized, scary, alien fashion. And this referendum was clearly a vote in which the desire to keep gay people invisible trumped the urge to treat them equally.[…]
But civil rights victories, the final and enduring ones, are always built on the foundations of defeats. Sometimes, the defeat of a minority’s sincere aspiration to equality helps reveal the injustice of the discrimination and the cruelty of the marginalization. Sometimes, it helps show just how poorly treated we are, and galvanizes a community to fight back more fiercely as we saw in that amazing march on DC last month. That has certainly been true of previous civil rights movements. It is just as true of ours.
So congrats, Maine Equality. You did a fine job. Congrats, HRC. You helped. No congrats to Obama who is treating this civil rights movement the way Kennedy first treated his. But we don’t need Obama.
We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. And we will win in due course, with a good spirit and keen arguments, and with passion and conviction in our hearts. We will win.
Maybe they’d prefer their kids to grow up into the lovely classmates who left hatemail in my locker.
Maybe they’d prefer it if their kids turned out like the people who kicked Ian Baynham to death.
Or maybe they want to amke sure that if their kids do turn out “like that” then they’ll do the “decent thing” and get rid of themselves.
Or maybe they just aren’t thinking about the consequences of their actions.
Please, please God, let it only be that. Let it only be that.
An the title of this post is just awesome. *love*
Principled? By letting the national party dictate who the nominee should be in a race? What about letting the constituents of the district decide? Scozzafava was unanimously nominated by the local party leaders. That Sarah Palin felt that she showed insufficient fealty to the national Republican goals is irrelevant and disrespectful to the democratic process.
As much as I’m sad and angry about Maine, the results (and the DC amendment) trash the notion that “the black community that is so religious and homophobic” are to blame. Hopefully, we can start working on building the necessary diverse and broad coalition to engage change.
And speaking of change, we need to start building strategies to address SSM as a civil rights issue because putting it to majority vote in a majority homophobic context doesn’t seem to cut it. (apologies this doesn’t make sense, I’m in a rush)
Yeah, the title of this post is great, and sums everything up perfectly.
NY-36 is interesting, primarily because it isn’t akin to trying to push Lieberman out. Don’t get me wrong — the base has a right to push for its own candidate. But there is running a candidate on principle, and running one who can win, and in a swing district like NY-36, Scozzafava was far more electable than Hoffman. In Connecticut, contrawise, the state is pretty liberal, and while it’s possible for a moderate Republican to win there, (as may happen with Chris Dodd, who has an ethics cloud hanging over him), it’s generally going to go blue. Ned Lamont would have won the general election easily, which is why pushing Lieberman was no risk.
It’s why Democrats put up with Ben Nelson or Colin Peterson; they’re conservative, but they’re as liberal as we can get out of those districts. I’d be pushing to oust Peterson if he was in MN-5 instead of MN-7, but he isn’t. And if I got my ideal liberal candidate up there, she’d lose badly to a Tom Tancredo clone.
Pushing for ideological purity in districts that can support it is fine and dandy; it’s why Keith Ellison represents Minneapolis and Michele Bachmann represents MN-6. But in swing districts, it’s potentially disastrous. If the GOP wants ideological purity across the board, it will cost them votes. It is a zero-sum game.
Scozzafava was way outside the mainstream for the national Republican base, but New York Republicans in general are more socially liberal than Republicans nationwide. Left to their own devices, it’s not unthinkable that NY Republicans, even in the 23rd district, would have voted for someone who was pro-choice and pro-marriage equality; most of my (conservative) family lives there, and they were fine with Scozzafava until groups like Club for Growth started pouring money into Hoffman’s campaign.
We worked hard for the victory here in Washington State, and I’m thrilled it’s passing. It’s the first time a US state’s voters have upheld civil unions when a referendum has hit the ballot. Thanks for being the only person I’ve seen outside our borders who’s noticed, even if you did belittle it in the same breath. A win’s a win.
I’m wondering if the secrecy-shrouded “conservatives” who brought the referendum, then fought so hard to keep their identities a mystery, will emerge from the closet now. Their insistence on facelessness and flagrant disregard for Washington campaign finance disclosure laws cost them at least a few votes. Not knowing who was behind the effort troubled a pair of the middle-right-wing folks I work with enough that they abstained from voting on the issue.
Pingback: links for 2009-11-06 « Embololalia
Interesting that people seem to think that “don’t accept the concept of same-sex ‘marriage'” = “hate gays”. Do you really think that beliefs and feelings about homosexuality are that binary? Because if you do you’re never going to achieve your goals.
That’s the right direction, but not far enough. Convincing the ruling class isn’t enough. You have to convince the people.
If they cut payroll taxes how are they going to pay for all the new social programs? People are figuring out this tax and spend thing (and for sure, recent Republican administrations have certainly done their part in that education) – deficits going up and up and up is not a good thing. But you’re right in that first sentence. I seem to recall a successful Democratic Presidential candidate who put it very succinctly – “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Ron–seriously, please don’t use the scare quotes.
Additionally, Ron, what civil rights of yours would you like to be held up for a majority vote? Shall we vote on whether you should have the right to free speech? How about whether you should have the right to vote? And if we all don’t agree about whether your minority of one should have these rights, then we ought to be able to take them away. Majority rules. Any court or legislative redress would be silly, because that’s just the ruling class trying to take away our majority right to take away your rights whenever we damn well please.
Ron, once upon a time there were once many people who approved of and joined “exclusive” (i.e., no Jews) country clubs. These people — and even the people who ran the clubs — claimed, over and over, to have nothing at all against Jewish people. They had close and beloved Jewish friends, even (or so they claimed).
I think nit-picking over the exact meaning of “hate” is one way bigots try to distract the conversation from anything that matters. If you favor substantively different rules for gay couples than for straight couples, then that’s bigotry. As far as I’m concerned, bigotry is a form of hate.
It may well be that someone who hates queers in the sense that matters to me — they supported bigoted anti-queer laws — doesn’t hate queers in some other fashion. (Someone who favors bigoted laws, but has nothing personally against their gay acquaintance Sally, for example). I don’t see how that example is any different from the country-club bigot who wants to keep Jews out of his club, but has a perfectly friendly relationship with a Jewish co-worker.
In short, I think it is your argument — not mine — which is simplistic on this issue, Ron. Hate is not a simple binary, as you said. Therefore, just because someone is not hateful in every imaginable way, doesn’t mean that they’re not hateful in the important sense this post is discussing.
* * *
Ron, Republicans did far more than their share in deficit spending; they absolutely refused to raise taxes (in fact cut them) while massively increasing spending. At the Federal level, there was not a single major Republican program in the last 10 years that was paid for. NOT ONE.
I can’t see why any conservative could be said to have any credibility on this issue, with a record like that. Conservative objections to deficit spending are opportunistic; no Republican will give a damn about deficits the moment Republicans retake power. Why should I pay attention to a purely opportunistic opposition to deficit spending?
That said, the arguments for deficit spending on stimulus measures — rather than the unfunded garbage Republicans favor (unfunded wars galore! Tax cuts for the rich! Unfunded prescription drug coverage!) — makes a huge amount of economic sense. What I’m suggesting would fit into that.
In fairness, it’s only a majority vote most places because that is what the state Constitutions say it is. There’s nothing inherently wrong about majority voting. Sometimes it is personally beneficial and sometimes not (depending on the issue) but that’s not the fault of the process.
Even a constitutional amendment is just a series of supermajority votes. And there is no serious objective difference between 51% and 67%; it’s not as if one level is OK and the other is immoral.
As an attorney, I am constantly torn by this issue. On the one hand, I personally want gay marriage everywhere; I have gay relatives and friends and even though I live in Massachusetts where they can marry I see no reason why other gays should get screwed.
OTOH, I am a strong believer in the preservation of our political process. And I hold a strong belief that the political process is primarily designed to reflect the will of the populace as reflected by majority vote. I am generally annoyed by people who constantly change their views for expediency: just because they don’t like an outcome they think the process is bad. I don’t want to be one of those people, but neither do I want to have no gay marriage.
The process is not good at protecting minority rights. That’s why other protections are built into the system, nu?
Yes, of course.
But the question of which rights get extra protection and how (not all political minority groups get protection by any means, just some of them) is not so obvious. At least it isn’t to me; I can’t really get behind a black and white view.
As much as I would like widespread gay marriage and as much as I support gay marriage, for example: do I think that the distinction between civil unions and complete gay marriage is obviously a human rights issue worthy of judicial intervention based on the U.S. Constitution? I don’t, unfortunately. I sort of wish I did, because it’d make thinking about it easier.
Oddly enough, I sometimes wish I was one of those people who manages never to feel conflicted because they are always sure their position is right. Life must be a lot simpler that way.
And part of it is that I really do tend to play the “flip sides” game:
When I think of political systems where I’m in the majority and want to enforce my wishes on that basis… I try to figure out whether the rules are ones which I would be willing to live with were I in the minority.
When I’m in the minority and wishing that I could have some sort of ‘special’ powers or rights… I try to think about whether I would, if in I were in the majority, live with my political opponents possessing that same power.
So for example, do I want my opponents to vote down gay marriage? Hell no. But would I want to give up my ability to affect things of equal importance through majority vote, if I wanted to change something I didn’t like? Also no. And so it goes.
We don’t have to go that far back.
There’s the judge who wouldn’t marry interracial couples, but insisted he let black people use his bathroom(?!).
There’s the bar owner with Klan regalia hanging proudly in his bar who insists that he’s no racist.
These are recent. This is happening in 2009. Bigots will always make excuses for their bigotry and try to convince you that they’ve got no problem with
black peoplegay people, they just don’t think that they ought to be able to marrywhite peopleeach other.Bigotry is bigotry. Hate is hate. We’re not stupid, we’re not blind, and the bigots aren’t fooling us.
—Myca
I will second this. You’ve been asked more than once, Ron.
Stop.
—Myca
Interesting that people seem to think that “don’t accept the concept of same-sex ‘marriage’” = “hate gays”.
I think Amp’s response on #13 is good; there’s also a good conversation going on at Ta-Nehisi Coates’ blog over here.
Over at Feministe, there’s a conversation going on about actor Gabourey Sidibe of “Precious” fame; apparently some people just can’t handle a woman her size getting recognition for her talent and her beauty. Which brings me to:
RonF, you’ve mentioned in the past that you are a man of considerable size. Fat, even. There’s an awful lot of folks who are upset enough to say something quite similar to your assertion about same-sex marriage—-that “fat” people should do this-or-that, or shouldn’t do this-or-that, and I’ve seen growing sentiment on the trollish side of the blogosphere that indicates maybe it’s time for some more draconian action against “fat” people—time to break out the stick, instead of the carrot sticks.
Should “fat marriage” exist? Especially since “fat parents” tend to produce “fat children”?
I want to be crystal-clear—-I’m opposed to fatphobia. I not only think it’s no one else’s business what size a person happens to be, I think (in general) that people don’t have much (if any) control over their size. I’m relatively slender, but all the diet and exercise in the world isn’t going to turn my mesomorphic frame into that of an ectomorph. From what I’ve seen, the same is true for endomorphs.
RonF, I get that you’re uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. What I don’t understand is why so many people (perhaps you are one of them) are opposed to legal marriage for same-sex partners—why so much energy is being directed toward preventing one set of people from being able to exercise (what I see as) a human right that they themselves take for granted.
I see it as completely arbitrary. To me, it’s no different than if marriage between brown-eyed and blue-eyed was banned. What am I missing? And why should the voters get to decide on the human rights of other voters?
Sailorman,
What type of political process would be acceptable to you to get to gay marriage?
Edit: And was Loving wrongly decided? Or politically wrong?
On further thought, Ron, was Loving the wrong way to legalize interracial relationships? That certainly was an imposition by the elites.
I think SM’s point — which I agree with, as far as it goes — is that all protections are in some way subject to democracy, too, either through direct votes, or through elected representatives, or a combination of both. The right of Jews like me to marry, for instance, could in theory be taken away by a determined majority of the culture, if they elected enough people to Congress (both Federal and state) who share those views.
That’s democracy, and I prefer it to any other system I can imagine. However, amending constitutions with simple majority votes turns Constitutional Rights into popularity contests. I’d prefer a two-thirds requirement, at least when it comes to amending state Constitutions. A double-election requirement might make sense, as well (requiring a constitutional amendment to pass a vote two elections in a row). The system should make amending Constitutionsinto a slow, deliberative process.
So, either directly or through elected representatives, I do think people should be able to vote on equal marriage rights (and everything else).
I think people should have the right to vote against civil rights and equality — but I wish they had the wit and compassion not to.
I think I understood that part of his point. What I don’t understand is – he seems to think (and maybe he’ll correct me) that it’s not appropriate (legally? or politically?) for the courts to find a right to gay marriage, that it must be done through a vote, and that requires putting a civil right up to a vote. I’m wondering if he feels that way about other marriage-related civil rights or just gay marriage. And if so, why?
Yeah. This.
Look, judicial review is part of the process. It’s not some magical imposition or some alien thing imposing its will … it’s part of the process. If you’re opposed to judicial review, then you presumably think it would be acceptable for a legislature to prohibit (on a 51-49 vote) the practice of Catholicism, or to prohibit (on a 51-49 vote) the expression of political ideas critical of the president.
If you think that the legislature not not be allowed to do such a thing, since it would infringe our constitutional rights, then you need to understand that judicial review is the process by which such things are prevented.
Well, I think that the legislature should not be allowed to (on a 51-49 vote) deny a minority class of citizens a basic right. And Loving (if I understand correctly) says that marriage is a basic right.
—Myca
Look, I agree with this part:
But it does not follow from this part, which I disagree with:
There’s a clear and obvious objective difference. One needs a greater percentage of the population than the other.
This is important in this case because when we’re talking about constitutional amendments, we’re discussing the basic governing principles that guide our republic. The idea behind requiring a supermajority for that is that the basic governing principles of our nation ought to be things that a large majority (as opposed to a bare majority) of us agree on … issues where we’re mostly all in agreement.
I think that that’s right. It’s not that i think that’s right because it tends to lead to results I like, it’s that I think operating a country based on basic principles that very close to half the nation disagrees with is a bad idea.
—Myca
I’m clearly miscommunicating. I am certainly in tune with the constitutional right to judicial review (I had better be, in my profession!) There is no question in my mind that it is appropriate from a legal standpoint: the constitution grants that power, or at least is has been held to do so for a long time.
That said, it’s not clear to me that the power which has been grabbed by the courts is actually the separation which has been envisioned. So even if I like the actual results of a court decision, I don’t necessarily like the theoretical basis for it. Roe, for example, was a horrible case, but a good result. I haven’t read Loving in a while, so I can’t comment on it from memory.
From a political-theory standpoint I generally prefer legislative actions over judicial and direct citizen vote over legislative. Courts are super-elites, appointed by elected elites. I view the inevitable reduction in voting (and preferencing of the actions and beliefs of an elite) as you climb the chain from direct democracy as a necessary evil to have a functioning government of this size, but especially in a two-party system I think there are a huge number of problems with it.
more if you want–I gtg–but we are probably just coming from different theoretical camps.
What do you view as the appropriate safeguard against the tyranny of the majority?
Keep in mind that, as I said in another thread, interracial marriages didn’t pass the 51% approval nationwide threshold until 1991.
—Myca
interesting discussion. for the record, i approve of the use of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to make anti-gay marriage laws unconstitutional. liberal thought from the enlightenment on has always faulted toward indiscriminate freedom, classically defined, ie freedom from governmental force. this is the context under which the bill of rights was written, from its preamble which defines rights as restrictive clauses to the lovely first and rarely used 9th amendments, which are so extreme they appear to be written by ayn rand or somebody. as long as we’re not talking about positive rights (like right to healthcare, etc) i think one can make a compelling case that the bill of rights should be broadly interpreted.
but unfortunately legitimacy in a democracy depends on the will of the people. scoutus can’t get too far ahead without a backlash. however, pols indicate gay rights are now on the cusp of inevitability. we’re probably just waiting for one generation to die and boom, we have a solid majority. therefore, if scoutus had the will they could get away with it. but ironically, the people are probably ahead of them.
What do you view as an appropriate safeguard to protect the interests of the majority?
There are two competing worries, right? I see you talking about protecting minority votes and I agree with you that there can be harm in allowing the majority to win* over the minority.
I don’t see you talking about protecting majority interests, though; do you recognize that problem as well? Because it seems fairly obvious to me that there can also be harm in forcing a loss for the majority of people, in favor of a win by the minority.
The idea of protecting the minority usually runs by setting out some very, very, limited unalienable rights. And then it builds additional safeguards to prevent too much flipping as society changes.
So in terms of protecting the minority: Constitutions are good. Judicial review can help, though not always. So can certain types of representation.
It’s not that I don’t believe in protecting the minority–I do. It’s just that I also recognize that there are costs to doing so.
*”Win,” in this context, is just a short catch-all for success. Similarly, majority/minority in ths context refer to political groups, not racial groups.
I think the fact that in a democracy, even one which safeguards the rights of minorities, the majority will get their way 90% of the time is sufficient.
I don’t view the ability to prohibit interracial couples from marrying as an interest of the majority that needs protecting, since I think it’s a much greater imposition on the couples prevented from marrying than it could possibly be on the disapproving citizens who are not involved.
Now answer my question?
Do you believe that the proper course of events would have been for interracial marriages to remain illegal in some states until 1991? Or perhaps for a bare majority to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage between people of different races nationwide?
—Myca
Do you acknowledge that there is a tradeoff between those rights, and that it’s not a zero sum game? And are you comfortable applying those exact rules to your opponents in instances where you are in the majority?
I agree with your conclusion in this case but not the process by which you seem to be getting there: It’s not only about the magnitude of harm, but also about the number of people harmed. A small harm to a large number of people can outweigh a larger harm to a small number of people.
I think that the preferable course of events would be legislative passage of a constitutional amendment.
“Wait,” you may say, “your only choices are no passage until 1991 and passage via court in 1967.”
I don’t agree that those are the correct choices. The existence of Loving affects the sentiments and actions of the population, just as does the existence of any other court case. So I don’t accept the premise that, absent any court ruling in Loving, the status quo on interracial marriage or miscegenation would have remained consistent until 1991.
Would the CRA have evolved to add marriage? Would the resulting legislative debate and law give us a better solution in the long term than we got through Loving? Would society be worse off or better off now? I don’t know, but I do not see how that can be discounted.
To a large, degree, the existence of Loving and cases like Loving allows people to avoid being caught between morality and effect. If you can be anti-interracial-marriage to your heart’s content without it having a damn bit of difference, then the discussion w/r/t interracial marriage isn’t a focus for change.
And there’s also the question about the reality of achieving things through the political process. In the case of gay marriage, for example: gays are something like ten percent of the population. In theory, gays should have very little political power; they should be the ultimate disenfranchised minority. But not only do we have a variety of gay legislators at the state and national level, but the reality is that gay rights are poised to advance through the legislature in a variety of states, very soon. That “disenfranchised” minority has come pretty close to getting 50% of the vote in a hell of a lot of places.
I would think of it as “better” if gay rights were passed through a vote than if they were passed by convincing a single unelected judge of the correctness of their position.
But as for minority protections: I am generally happy with the U.S. system. But I still recognize that the court makes some serious mistakes on occasion, and that it is arguably a hell of a lot more political than the founders originally intended. I occasionally feel that the court has stepped a bit over the line of interpretation into legislating.
(and as for the tyranny of majorities/minorities: we’d have had the ERA as law quite some time ago, for example. Right? IIRC, 35 states ratified it. Supermajorities work against change, both liberal and conservative.)
Sure there’s a tradeoff, and yes, I’d agree that it’s not a zero sum game.
It is precisely because our system is set up so that the majority mostly gets its way that I feel like the minority needs some sort of special protection of their rights.
If our system were a ‘reverse democracy’, where a minority of voters elect their chosen representatives, pass laws & etc, then I’d probably feel like we needed a special protection of the rights of the majority.
Three answers:
1) Yes, of course.
2) Did you have a specific example in mind? The one that comes to mind first for me is the right to free assembly for those who disagree with me. And yeah, I did found a student branch of the ACLU, and yeah, I do agree with their fighting for the rights of the skinheads to march. I am unquestionably politically in the majority as compared to the skinheads. I regularly support the rights of minority groups that I abhor.
3) This is not the first time that you have implied hypocrisy on the part of those who disagree with you, and it is not the first time you have implied hypocrisy specifically on my part. It’s not a great tactic, and I wish you’d stop.
I think of hard-line, doctrinaire utilitarianism as sort of like hard-line, doctrinaire free-market capitalism or hard-line, doctrinaire communism: unlikely to produce consistently useful results in the real world.
So yeah, theoretically, a small harm to a large number of people can outweigh a larger harm to a small number of people, but realize where that takes you if you don’t apply some limits. That’s the logic that says that torturing an orphan to death in front of an auditorium is perfectly acceptable as long as the happiness of the onlookers is more than the unhappiness of the child. That’s clearly unacceptable, so we must need some limits to the bare calculus of happiness.
I think that we call those limits ‘human rights.’ I don’t think it’s unreasonable to position marriage as a human right that ought not be infringed without an overwhelmingly good reason beyond, “lots of people would prefer to infringe on it.”
—Myca
Well, yes. Supermajorities make change harder … which I think is right when we’re discussing constitutional amendments.
If the constitution is a description of the basic principles which govern our republic, it ought to be changed rarely, and only when there is widespread agreement. This is as opposed to laws, which can be changed regularly and with only a bare majority, but must conform to those governing principles.
In other words, I don’t care exactly how the tax code works next week, or whether shoplifting carries a $500 fine or a $250 fine … but if we’re going to be repealing the first amendment, it had better goddamn well not be a 51/49 vote.
—Myca
I got the impression this was because Sailorman felt tempted to be hypocritcal on this subject, which he also feels passionately about, and he feels he must actively temper his political passions about this subject with fairness to everyone’s cause. I don’t think he’s accusing you (or me; he implied the same about me earlier) of anything that isn’t preoccupying him because he sees it as a possible temptation.
That’s just how I read it, of course.
I wasn’t actually intending to imply hypocrisy to either of you in particular, though it is true that I regularly experience a variety of people as being hypocritical on this particular point, and that I’m a bit hypoer aware of it because I struggle with it myself. I just see this as an especially challenging topic where most people (me included) are regularly and truly torn between two valid sets of moral goals. And when you/i/we want something extremely much, it is even more difficult for me/you/us to really try to stay objective and avoid hypocrisy.
Sorry if it came across as a personal attack; that’s not what i intended at all.
I understand the concern, but the way you tend to frame these things is as if your motives are above reproach, but those who disagree with you must be blinded by their preferences. Here are some bits from the last time we discussed this:
Sailorman:
Look, dude.
I explained in excruciating detail exactly what I believed, why I believed it, and how it applies (using specific example) to minority beliefs that I do not favor in the previous thread.
I explained in less detail exactly what I believed, why I believed it, and how it applies (using A DIFFERENT specific example) to minority beliefs that I do not favor in this thread.
All I’m asking is that when I say something like, “I think that constitutional amendments should be determined by a supermajority vote rather than a bare majority,” you address that without questioning my motives. It’s impolite.
—Myca
Additionally, Ron, what civil rights of yours would you like to be held up for a majority vote?
None. But we’re not talking about a violation of a civil right. We’re talking about creating a new civil right. Marriage from the viewpoint of the law is a bond between a man and a woman. It pretty much always has been, regardless of variations in age, property rights, divorce rights, degrees of blood relationship, race, nationality, religious differences, number of people involved, etc. Yes, I’ve looked at the links that have been cited in previous disputes on this. But what they show is that recognitions of the bond between two people of the same sex as marriage have been very limited to the point of being describable as experimental, and have never gotten any widespread recognition or lasted particularly long. So what’s happening here is that the proponents of such want to re-define marriage without admitting that it’s a new thing. And that’s not a civil right.
Ron, Republicans did far more than their share in deficit spending; they absolutely refused to raise taxes (in fact cut them) while massively increasing spending. At the Federal level, there was not a single major Republican program in the last 10 years that was paid for. NOT ONE.
I’d have to check up on that. But I wouldn’t be surprised.
I can’t see why any conservative could be said to have any credibility on this issue, with a record like that.
Because “Republican” != “conservative”. “Republican” is not a particularly well-loved brand in conservative circles these days. There’s an acronym that used to be used a lot – “RINO”. It means “Republican In Name Only” and is applied to any Republican that strays from limited government principles. President Bush II was a RINO. But it’s falling out of favor because it’s now being recognized that the Republican party itself pretty much only gives lip service to conservative principles. Oh, yeah, conservatives tend to vote for Republicans, but it’s a lot like why a lot of the people here voted for Obama – they’re not by any means perfect, but the alternative is perceived as even worse.
It is precisely because our system is set up so that the majority mostly gets its way that I feel like the minority needs some sort of special protection of their rights.
God, yes. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights and why it takes so much effort to change the Constitution. Where you run into problems like the present dispute is when the minority wants to add something to that list of rights – especially if you deny that this is what you’re trying to do.
According to Loving v. Virginia, the right to marriage exists already.
—Myca
Look, its not like they’re trying to add the right to a decent wage. the founders may not have intended this but it is is a logical extension of their reasoning (of equality under the law). granted this may be one more step removed from the original doc than say adding the Internet to the vehicles of communication having first amendment protection, but its essentially the same type of reasoning that you see enumerated in the 9th amendment.
I completely agree. It’s amazing that we’re having this debate in America. It should be such a non-issue. Gay marriage should be allowed, end of story. Let’s move on to more important, harder-to-make decisions in America. I wrote about this today in my own blog, check it out if you like http://www.politicalinjustice.us/editorials/the-great-sex-debate-an-open-letter-to-same-sex-opponents.php