Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

Uh huh. Ram a law down your throat eh? This law that would be rammed down your throat, what would it make you do?

T
K
Oppressing homosexuals and then using democracy as a defense is laughable.

Quote:

I think that the citizens have the right to determine their own government, as opposed to you who want to have every vote you disagree with invalidated by a liberal judge, and every law you agree with passed in a backroom by committee.

Citizens have a right to determine their own government, but not to determine what Equality is. Citizens do not have the right to pass laws which are in contradiction with the Constitution or previous laws.

The real problem for your side, is that it has been conservative judges who are allowing Gay marriage to happen, not liberal ones; because denying rights to gays is inconsistent with Equality, and you know it.

Courts ruling on the legality of items is not a 'suspension of democracy.' The courts are an EQUAL part of our government to the other sections, not a subordinate one; you have a basic misunderstanding of how government works in the US, brought about by your disagreement with how sections of it have made social decisions. Intellectually poor choice on your part.

Cycloptichorn

Good point. The Iowa judges were very conservative.

I just don't understand what standard we are supposed to use here. People like Brandon say we should vote on this, but why this and not everything? A state will pass lots of laws etc, but then the second it's time to fulfill a promise by our government, we are supposed to vote on whether or not we want it?

T
K
O

if it really all should be based on popular vote, we should bring a vote to strike the ban on slavery. it probably wouldn't pass, but i bet it would get a lot of support. we should also vote on whether women should drive or not. i'd vote no. (sorry mom).

democracy is a great idea, but in practice, it's not so perfect. the problem is that people with inferior understandings or ethics have just as much say. there are far more under-educated than not. if it were up to a popular vote, scientific progress in this country would be dismantled with a quickness. we would be back in the dark ages.

Diest TKO wrote:

Uh huh. Ram a law down your throat eh? This law that would be rammed down your throat, what would it make you do?

T
K
Oppressing homosexuals and then using democracy as a defense is laughable.

You don't want to let the people decide their own laws. Your laws are passed in back rooms, and when some jurisdiction's voters pass a law against gay marriage, you try to have it nullified. You don't believe in one of the most fundamental rights, the right of the people to determine their own government.

Show me where in the Constitution is says that marrying your own gender is a right.

Show me where in the Constitution is says that marrying your own gender is a right.

The Constitution doesn't say you have a right to marry ANYONE. However, it does speak of the pursuit of happiness that all citizens are entitled to.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Constitution doesn't say you have a right to marry ANYONE. However, it does speak of the pursuit of happiness that all citizens are entitled to.

No it doesn't. You're confusing it with the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution, in its Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, states that the government cannot deprive you of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. Interpreting these clauses, the Supreme Court has recognized the right to marry as a fundamental part of ones liberty. Accordingly, it reviews any law infringement of that liberty under a starndard of strict scrutiny: It assumes that the law is unconstitutional, and places on the state the burden of proving that the law is narrowly tailored to promote a compelling government interest.

And your reason for dismantling democratic process is it wont do what you want ? How is that different from being a Nazi ?

....Nobody is 'dismantling' the democratic process. Courts and legislatures deciding upon laws is the democratic process....

Cycloptichorn wrote:

....Nobody is 'dismantling' the democratic process. Courts and legislatures deciding upon laws is the democratic process....

LOL - you may want to double-check that inanity with Jespah (a JD) or at the very least look up the correct text on the rights not explicitly granted to the federal government or to the several states remaining with The People...

High Seas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

....Nobody is 'dismantling' the democratic process. Courts and legislatures deciding upon laws is the democratic process....

LOL - you may want to double-check that inanity with Jespah (a JD) or at the very least look up the correct text on the rights not explicitly granted to the federal government or to the several states remaining with The People...

Sorry I laughed, Cycl - I forgot you can't see all that well, and can't see at all with one eye. I'll look up the relevant text for you, since you're obviously incapable of identifying it, and leave you to distinguish between "the people" and your stated alternative "legislatures and courts".

And your reason for dismantling democratic process is it wont do what you want ?

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever.....

Ending slavery and women's sufferage were not within the will of the people when their time came. Why should these things have had to wait to pass at the mores of the people? Would they have ever passed?