Prop 8?

@hawkeye10,

Stop throwing temper tantrums Hawkeye10.

Gay marriage IS decoupled from polygamy. Polygamy IS decoupled from incestuous marriage. Incestuous marriage IS decoupled from gay marriage.

Just like mixed race marriage was.
Just like mixed faith marriage was.

Throw a fit all you like, but it doesn't make your slippery slope argument make any more sense. You can't make a logical or legal argument against gay marriage, ans so you feel the only way you can prevail is by invoking some notion of a slippery slope.

You should really knock it off and get educated on the topic.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I have not made the "slippery slope" argument, in fact I have never claimed to have a problem with incest or polygamy. My argument is that we should focus on what marriage should be, not on one minority groups political effort to gain rights that they don't currently have. My argument that what homosexuals want is irrelevant at the moment, we first need to come to majority agreement as to what marriage is or should be. Only then can we address homosexuals claim that the should be allowed marriage. The demands that they have the right to marriage is a non starter, they have the rights that the majority allow them to have, they don't decide.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

More circular argumentum ad populum.

A majority agreement can decide to do things wrong Hawkeye10. Don't you get it?

They can decide the world is flat.
They can decide the earth is the center of the universe.
They can decide gays can't marry.

But in the face of reason and logic, the majority is not the ultimate authority. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter what the vote is.

I accept that the situation as is has removed gay's right to marry. I accept that's where we are right now. I do not accept that we are here because of some noble, rational, logical, or ethical reason. Now that prop8 is being evaluated in court, the notion of mob rule is out. Your ranting about the majority is meaningless. The majority voted in a amendment that creates a conflict within our governing documents. Now what? The majority voted to remove a right, that's not an amendment, that's a revision. Now what? Majority rule is a matter of fact statement. We live in a republic don't we? The rights granted to the minority are not granted by the majority, they are granted by the state.

You need to get educated on the issue. Your premise is wrong that the majority gives the rights to the minority. The minority takes it's rights via a rational legal argument.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Your premise is wrong that the majority gives the rights to the minority. The minority takes it's rights via a rational legal argument.

the breadth of the ignorance displayed in the above comment is breath taking. Have you taken a single history course?? The argument that sways the masses is the winning argument. You can reason and rationalize in opposition as much as you want, it will not make any difference. Humans are often not reasonable rational people, reasonable rational arguments only sometimes work. In any case those without power NEVER take from those with the power, they are gifted to. In democracy the masses have the power, that is the whole point.

It is you who needs to get educated...on human nature.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

The majority didn't repeal Jim Crow Laws. The minority challenged with a rational legal argument. The majority's wishes to keep things the way they were couldn't stop that.

Ration does trump. That's why we don't do the majority rule thing. We set up a system to challenge itself to be its best, and to do so with a rational argument.

The majority doesn't gift to the minority. It's not the majority's to give. Rights belong to us all, and we claim them. The gays right now are fighting to claim their right.

The majority does not have to be on board.
K
O

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. YOU are the one who needs to get educated.

Minority rights should never be up to majority vote. PERIOD.

1 Reply

@majikal,

should or shouldn't they are. The civil rights movement of the sixties was successful because the majority signed on for it...the majority is free to sign off at any time. The premise that civil equality is written in stone is a laugh, it is very new to America, and its staying power is in great doubt.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra, you make me laugh. Senator Larry Craig? Are you kidding me? Do you think that everyone is a closet homosexual? Have fun with that belief. And you say that my beliefs are irrational? Your arguments are going more so that way with each post. We can agree on something, though. Christian Scientology is crazy. I don't know why they even use the word Christian as part of their belief. So, I agree with you on that point.

You may disagree with my beliefs. That's fine with me. I know that not everyone will accept who God is and give their lives to him the way I have. One thing I want to correct you on, though. God is not against people having sex. He has created sex to be something that experienced ONLY between one man and one woman in marriage. God created sex and gave us sexual desires. Satan has come into this world and skewed what sex is all about. My fiance and I have both saved sex for marriage. We are both virgins and are looking forward to the wedding night. You may not believe what I've just said, but it's true. What have we missed out on by waiting? HIV, AIDS, unwanted pregnancy, and other various sexually transmitted diseases? No thanks. I'll wait and not have to worry about those things.

Debra, you and I are more alike than you care to believe. We just have opposite stances. Your theological beliefs differ from mine. But, you keep trying to push those beliefs onto me. How is that any different from what I've done? We're doing the same thing, just stressing opposite views. As a country, we vote on our theological views. Whether that includes a belief in a God different from the God I serve, we all have a belief in who God is. Even the athiest has a theological perspective on life. Those theological beliefs control what we view as right and wrong. So, it is impossible to separate those views from government. If our belief of what is right and what is wrong, it affects how we will vote. It affects how our elected officials legislate. It affects how our judges judge things. You can try to separate it, but we're all human beings and we run our lives based on what our personal theologies dictate. Your theology is different from mine. You were free to vote based on that understanding of what is right and what is wrong. So was I. The fact that our views clash, doesn't mean that one side should back down. However, you shouldn't come on a message board for the opposing side and expect to win everyone over. The people that post on this side have enough of an opinion to express themselves. Those that post in favor of the topic of the board are the ones that are strongly convinced their side is correct. My posts are intended to show that the yes on 8 people do have ground to stand on. I don't expect you to change your mind. You're too narrow minded to do that. Just as am I to change my opinion.

If you want to use the constitution as your defence, you need to look at what those that wrote the constitution intended. John Adams, our second president, said that the constitution was primarily formed from hearing the sermons of 8 Christian preachers. Our first meeting of congress was opened by a two hour Christian sermon. For almost the entire history of our country, it was a commonly held understanding that our country was based on Christian principles. Not untli the last 40 years or so did that ever get questioned. Our framers of the constitution were not all Christians. However, even those guys recognized that the God of Christianity was largly responsible for our country's independence from Brittan. Why do you think that the Constitution reads that those inalianable rights were endowed by our Creator? Who is that Creator?

I HAVE NOT DEPRIVED ANYONE OF THEIR LIBERTY. THIS IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. GAY PEOPLE HAVE ALL THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF A STRAIGHT MARRIED COUPLE. IT'S CALLED SOMETHING DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT. DIFFERENT THINGS GET DIFFERENT TITLES. Why don't you understand that? It's pretty simple. You are a woman and I am a man. We are different. So, we have different titles to describe who we are. It should not indicate that you are any less or more of a person than me. We are just different and should have a different title to describe ourselves. Civil Unions describe a gay union. Marriage describes a straight union.

Just because you say that civil unions do not grant the same rights as a marriage doesn't make it true. Read CA Family Code 297. The language contains "the same as marriage" in it many many times. What does "the same as" mean if it doesn't mean the same as? It's pretty simple.

Choosing to believe in a creator is NOT a poor choice. Believing in evolution or in the big bang theory is believeing in an incomplete theory. The big bang theory contends that life began when two atoms collided. However, it doesn't talk about where those two atoms came from. How did they exist? They had to be created. They had to come from somewhere. To believe in the big bang theory takes out all our purpose in life. If you take away a creator, what are you living for? Why even get up? Why do anything good? What are the reprecussions of doing something bad? I could go on a full explanation, but that would be a novel. I ask you to read something for me. If you want to know where I'm coming from, read "A Case for A Creator" by Lee Strobel. Lee was an athiest legal journalist who went out to proove once and for all that Christianity and a belief in God was false. A funny thing happened though. He became a Christian. This book shows historical evidence outside of the Bible that backs the claims of the Bible. Mr. Strobel has a series of books that do the same thing with other areas of the Christian faith. I would suggest that you also read "A Case for Christ" by the same author.

You say that the laws of nature do not include marriage. I would argue that they do. After all Eve was created to be a sutible partner for Adam in the Garden of Eden. Giving unions of men and wome the title marriage came later. However, the concept of marriage and family life has been around since the begining of time.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

reason is the currency of the courts, but the courts can be and sometimes are overruled by the other two branches of government, at the behest of the majority. The majority is always free to over rule the courts, and will overrule the courts any time they can come up with a 2/3 super majority that feels strong enough about the issue at hand to do the work required put the courts down.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

And what about Brown v Board of Education Hawkeye10?

The court overruled the majority. The minority claimed it's right. It did not require the majority gifting it to them. I understand what you think happens, but you're wrong about the nature of rights and who is the custodian of them.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Copper Seth,

Copper Seth wrote:

Your theological beliefs differ from mine. But, you keep trying to push those beliefs onto me. How is that any different from what I've done? We're doing the same thing, just stressing opposite views.

What is she (or anyone else for that matter) pushing on you? What? Be specific. Otherwise, you're full of crap.

Nobody is making you do anything. Nobody is stopping you from doing anything. You cannot claim the same with your stance.

That's the difference.
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

in that case the majority did not feel strongly enough to reverse the court. If there is a strong majority opposed to gay marriage you can bet your last dollar that the majority will over turn the courts on this. I am assuming that in time the courts will legalize gay marriage, that the reasonable rational argument of gay rights to the same legal union rights as the majority heterosexual couples can enjoy if they desire will carry the day in the courts. I am not disputing that your case is more reasonable and rational then is the opposition. I am also not committing to a side, other than to point out that the gays can not extract anything from the heterosexuals that the heterosexuals don't want to give up (in this case giving up their definition of marriage) . Gays will not get marriage over the strenuous objection of the heterosexuals, and this being the case they would be wise to not insist that they can. This approach makes people like me consider knocking the chip off their shoulder, no matter how I might feel about the truth of what they are saying.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

This isn't a homosexual versus heterosexual clash. Even though prop8 passed, the vote break down illustrates that straight people obviously supported it too. Gays along could not by numbers vote it down.

What is so important about banning gays from marrying?

The definition of marriage doesn't belong to heterosexuals. It's not property. Heterosexuals don't have anything to lose. They aren't asked to give anything up. You seem to think that the construct of marriage is the estate of straight people and by sharing it with gays they somehow lose something. But marriage isn't real estate. It's not property. It doesn't belong to anyone.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

marriage has always been a heterosexual only contract, it does belong to the heterosexual majority until and unless they decide to allow the courts to expand it.

What you don't seem to understand that marriage is not only a state sanctified contract, it is an Identity. even now, after two generations of the institution of marriage being neglected and depowered, being married is part of the definition of some (many?) people. You want to change the definition of marriage and keep claiming that it should not matter to those who are married or who might be married under the current rules. That blows me away...you have no idea of what marriage traditionally has meant to people and sometimes still does. You act as if the whimsical mean nothing marriage practiced by some is marriage as everyone experiences it. As a guy who has been married 23 years, and who has at times had to work hard to stay married, I am offended by your ignorance.

Marriage has a legacy, which is a church ceremony, a sacrament, a contract with God. Marriage is now sanctified by the state only, is a much less significant contract, and is now one that is easy to make null and void. However, for many of us being married is an act of tapping into the rich tradition of marriage, we take it more seriously then the modern easy come easy go legal hooking up. By allowing sinners to be married it will not be any longer possible to look at marriage as being part and parcel of the traditional church marriage. Allowing gays to claim to be married will change what marriage is to all.

That expanding marriage will cheapen it is a very rational and easy to understand point. That some of us might care enough about marriage to not be willing to cheapen it is less rational. But as I have already explained what I want does not need to be rational, it only needs to be the opinion that is the majority opinion for me to get what i want. Might may not make right, but might makes the rules.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

marriage has always been a heterosexual only contract, it does belong to the heterosexual majority until and unless they decide to allow the courts to expand it.

Don't know what to tell you here Hawkeye. This just isn't true. Marriage has NOT always been a heterosexual only contract. In fact early homosexual marriages predate Christianity if you wanna hash things out.

As for your theory about the majority owning the rights. Whatever, this is our impasse. I believe that rights are claimed as per examples like brown v board of education and that we live in a representative republic. You believe otherwise, and have yet to site your source. I guess this is a because-I-said-so kind of thing. I'm not going to hold my breathe to get any sort of real supported argument out of you.

hawkeye10 wrote:

What you don't seem to understand that marriage is not only a state sanctified contract, it is an Identity.

The hell I don't. I tried to point out that this goes beyond a simple legal matter several times now. As for identity, I'd like to note that in your lectures on what marriage is, you seem afraid to mention the 800 lb gorilla in the room: Love.

hawkeye10 wrote:

even now, after two generations of the institution of marriage being neglected and depowered, being married is part of the definition of some (many?) people.

So while straight people have basically spoiled marriage and under appreciate its value, gays seem to understand it pretty well. I'd say by our argument that they might deserve it more in that case. But I'd never deny you the right to get married so this is neither here nor there.

hawkeye10 wrote:

You want to change the definition of marriage and keep claiming that it should not matter to those who are married or who might be married under the current rules.

I may not agree with any number of marriages or two straight people, doesn't mean I have the authority to challenge their right to get married.

hawkeye10 wrote:

That blows me away...you have no idea of what marriage traditionally has meant to people and sometimes still does. You act as if the whimsical mean nothing marriage practiced by some is marriage as everyone experiences it.

I most certainly do not. And if what marriage means to someone is that they feel more entitled to it than somebody else, I don't have sympathy for them. You seem to have strong ideas about what marriage means to you, that's great. If by letting gays marry it means anything different/less it's not marriage that is weak, it's your mind.

hawkeye10 wrote:

As a guy who has been married 23 years, and who has at times had to work hard to stay married, I am offended by your ignorance.

Maybe you wouldn't have to work so hard if you'd introduce the notion of love as the nature of the bond. Of course I could be wrong, when you describe what your marriage means to your wife, I bet you use the word love plenty. But not here. Here if you were to admit that true love or commitment is the passport to the "identity" or "status" that is marriage, you'd have a big problem defending your stance.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Marriage has a legacy, which is a church ceremony, a sacrament, a contract with God.

I'm not here to argue about what our favorite flavors of ice cream are. For you and some others, it's a church ceremony, but don't make the idiotic assumption that everyone associates marriage with the same things as you do.

After all, two atheists can be married right? You here to tell me they shouldn't be able to marry?

hawkeye10 wrote:

Marriage is now sanctified by the state only, is a much less significant contract, and is now one that is easy to make null and void.

What's your point? That the state shouldn't be the involved in marriage? That when it became a government contract, it meant less?

I won't disagree. Let's remove the notion of government control altogether. But wait... if people were free to get married outside of the authority of the state... how would you keep banning gays from marrying?

You've got a problem boss.

hawkeye10 wrote:

However, for many of us being married is an act of tapping into the rich tradition of marriage, we take it more seriously then the modern easy come easy go legal hooking up.

It's legal to hook up without a marriage. Dumb argument. Yes, yes, yes. You take marriage serious. So serious you make no mention of love. That's a mighty rich tradition you come from. Rolling Eyes

hawkeye10 wrote:

By allowing sinners to be married it will not be any longer possible to look at marriage as being part and parcel of the traditional church marriage.

You're a sinner. Your sins are no less than the homosexual. Being gay isn't exceptional in any way. Not that any of this matters. Sin is irrelevant in this conversation, unless you want to ban atheists (or any other non-christian) from getting married.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Allowing gays to claim to be married will change what marriage is to all.

How? Would you be less married? No. Less rights? No. Less in love. No (although I wonder if that's an issue). It's not like your insurance policy. It's not like your going to get a letter in the mail notifying you your monthly payment just went up.

hawkeye10 wrote:

That expanding marriage will cheapen it is a very rational and easy to understand point. That some of us might care enough about marriage to not be willing to cheapen it is less rational.

Unless you plan to quantify (that would be entertaining) the value of marriage with and without homosexuals marrying, and show how that value would be any less, you don't have a rational argument.

If you'd love your wife any less because two gay guys you don't know get married, you're a loser, and your wife would deserve better.

hawkeye10 wrote:

But as I have already explained what I want does not need to be rational, it only needs to be the opinion that is the majority opinion for me to get what i want.

So says the cricket on your should I suppose. Like I said, this is our impasse. I'll just stay crazy here and side with rational thought.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Might may not make right, but might makes the rules.

I understand better now. Rules don't have to be right, they just have to be your rules.

Case closed on you sir. Verdict: You're an unapologetic hypocrite.

T
K
Obviously, you don't care though.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Don't know what to tell you here Hawkeye. This just isn't true. Marriage has NOT always been a heterosexual only contract

Really? I grant you that homosexuals have entered into unions and called themselves married (very occasionally in history), but I know of no time when these unions were sanctified by a church or state. Do you know different??

Quote:

Maybe you wouldn't have to work so hard if you'd introduce the notion of love as the nature of the bond. Of course I could be wrong, when you describe what your marriage means to your wife, I bet you use the word love plenty. But not here. Here if you were to admit that true love or commitment is the passport to the "identity" or "status" that is marriage, you'd have a big problem defending your stance

Marriage motivated by love is not the norm through history, and it may not be the majority reason for marriage even now. The state must assume that people want to marry for their own multitude of reasons, whether it is for love or not does is impossible to know and does not matter so far as the state is concerned. Your argument of "they are in love as much as heterosexuals, thus they need to be allowed to enter into the love contract of marriage " fails because marriage is not a love contract. Even in olden times it was not, it was a contract with God, sometimes motivated out of love.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Don't know what to tell you here Hawkeye. This just isn't true. Marriage has NOT always been a heterosexual only contract

Really? I grant you that homosexuals have entered into unions and called themselves married (very occasionally in history), but I know of no time when these unions were sanctified by a church or state. Do you know different??

They were sanctified by their own authorities be it religious or otherwise. As for the state, you just got done rambling about how in 2 generations the value of marriage has gone down with marriage becoming a government contract.

You're talking yourself in circles here.

Hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Maybe you wouldn't have to work so hard if you'd introduce the notion of love as the nature of the bond. Of course I could be wrong, when you describe what your marriage means to your wife, I bet you use the word love plenty. But not here. Here if you were to admit that true love or commitment is the passport to the "identity" or "status" that is marriage, you'd have a big problem defending your stance

Marriage motivated by love is not the norm through history, and it may not be the majority reason for marriage even now. The state must assume that people want to marry for their own multitude of reasons, whether it is for love or not does is impossible to know and does not matter so far as the state is concerned. Your argument of "they are in love as much as heterosexuals, thus they need to be allowed to enter into the love contract of marriage " fails because marriage is not a love contract. Even in olden times it was not, it was a contract with God, sometimes motivated out of love.

If you don't think marriage is about love and commitment, then it's not the gays who are devaluing marriage--it's you.

God is not required for a marriage. Atheists can get married just fine. It doesn't mean any less. God is irrelevant in this discussion.

It's hard to decide if it's worth talking to you. I've asked a lot of questions that you casually choose not to address.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

They were sanctified by their own authorities be it religious or otherwise. As for the state, you just got done rambling about how in 2 generations the value of marriage has gone down with marriage becoming a government contract.

Do you have any evidence that gay marriages have ever been sanctified by any church or any state? If all history has to offer is gays calling themselves married then i don't think that you can claim that gay marriage has any historical legitimacy. And for the record I don't have a problem with gays today calling themselves married. So long as the collective does not recognize the marriage though the state it makes no difference to me what the gay couple claims is their label for their union.

Quote:

If you don't think marriage is about love and commitment, then it's not the gays who are devaluing marriage--it's you

I did not say "love and commitment" I said 'love". Gays say that they want the state to recognize the commitment in their relationship, and I have no problem with that. However, any court would recognize a valid contract between two people, marriage or even a standard gay commitment contract in lue of marriage between gays is not needed to allow gay couple to have their commitment documented and enforced. Gays also would have little trouble with getting the majority heterosexuals to agree to a gay union contract of commitment, something like marriage but called something else with the terms being possibly not the same (for instance changing what happens with the kids if the union ends, as both gay parents don't have the same claim on the kid...the presumed genetic link on both sides). But no, the gay rights crowd is rather radical and will not settle for something like marriage almost the same as marriage, they want to cram homosexual marriage down the throat of the majority. They will not succeed, as they have reached too far, and show an unwillingness to cooperate and compromise.

And the homosexuals stand there and deride the anti gay marriage folks as unfair and uncivilized! The gay rights groups have been militant for several decades and when they churn up resistance they morally castigate those who object to their political agenda. Nice work, but not very appealing, and not very effective in convincing me to support said political agenda.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Gays also would have little trouble with getting the majority heterosexuals to agree to a gay union contract of commitment, something like marriage but called something else with the terms being possibly not the same (for instance changing what happens with the kids if the union ends, as both gay parents don't have the same claim on the kid...the presumed genetic link on both sides).

You are so irrational and uneducated that having any kind of discussion with you is an exercise in futility. The above is just one example of your insanity. A genetic link merely gives a biological parent an opportunity to parent a biological child, and in some instances (e.g., for sperm and egg donors), not even that. States terminate the parental rights of biological parents everyday for many reasons making children available for adoption. Your assertion that gay parents who do not have a genetic link to their children ought to be denied the "same claim" to their children that heterosexual parents may claim is ridiculous. It's an insane product of your prejudice and bigotry.

Quote:

But no, the gay rights crowd is rather radical and will not settle for something like marriage almost the same as marriage, they want to cram homosexual marriage down the throat of the majority. They will not succeed, as they have reached too far, and show an unwillingness to cooperate and compromise.

Who is the "radical" one here? You're the one who crawled out of the radical hole. You're the one who insists on stripping gay parents of their parental rights to their adopted children in the event of a divorce. You're a mindless jerk. No one is cramming anything down your pathetic throat. No one is required to kiss your insanely prejudiced ass to obtain the promise of liberty and equality in America.

Quote:

And the homosexuals stand there and deride the anti gay marriage folks as unfair and uncivilized! The gay rights groups have been militant for several decades and when they churn up resistance they morally castigate those who object to their political agenda. Nice work, but not very appealing, and not very effective in convincing me to support said political agenda.

You're so stupid that you think the emperor is wearing clothes. Why don't you stand yourself in front of the mirror and see what the rest of us see. Once you strip away your nonexistent armor of alleged fairness and civility, all you have left is a naked bigot.

Their "political agenda" is no different than the agenda of all oppressed people: liberty and equal protection of the law.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. Thus, your ignorant "mob rule" mentality has no place in this country. If the truth was otherwise, then the tyrannical mob can turn on you at any moment and strip you of your rights. If the security of a constitutional republic cannot protect individuals from tyrannical mobs, it can't protect you and the Constitution is relegated to toilet paper.

Educate yourself and learn what it means to be a citizen of a constitutional republic. Until you prove that you know and understand the difference between the rule of law (constitutional republic) and the rule of the mob (pure democracy), any discussion with you is a waste of time.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Quote:

You are so irrational and uneducated that having any kind of discussion with you is an exercise in futility. The above is just one example of your insanity. A genetic link merely gives a biological parent an opportunity to parent a biological child, and in some instances (e.g., for sperm and egg donors), not even that. States terminate the parental rights of biological parents everyday for many reasons making children available for adoption. Your assertion that gay parents who do not have a genetic link to their children ought to be denied the "same claim" to their children that heterosexual parents may claim is ridiculous. It's an insane product of your prejudice and bigotry

If you were correct then we would not have court ordered paternity tests, and Texas would not have spent so much time and money using genetic tests to map out the family relationships at the flds cult in Eldorado

Quote:

Who is the "radical" one here? You're the one who crawled out of the radical hole. You're the one who insists on stripping gay parents of their parental rights to their adopted children in the event of a divorce. You're a mindless jerk. No one is cramming anything down your pathetic throat. No one is required to kiss your insanely prejudiced ass to obtain the promise of liberty and equality in America

They are however required to assemble a majority, and I play a tiny part in deciding if they do, or not.

Quote:

Educate yourself and learn what it means to be a citizen of a constitutional republic. Until you prove that you know and understand the difference between the rule of law (constitutional republic) and the rule of the mob (pure democracy), any discussion with you is a waste of time.

And who makes the laws? The people do, through the three branches of Government. The courts are the most independent, are the most able to impose a will or an agenda upon the people, but the courts can be and are overruled by the other two branches, at the behest of the majority. The people consent to be governed by the rule of law only because the people decide the law. You are a fine one to throw around claims of stupidity, you who seem to have no understanding of how the majority wields its power within a constitutional democracy. It is as if you have spent your whole life in books, and have no familiarity with everyday life in the republic in which you live.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know