America is a Democracy so maybe you should hold off!?

I suppose the answer is that some people feel they must promote their views when there are injustices. Even when the majority may not agree with them.

Like the Abolitionists in 1820.
Like Proponents of Gay marriage today.
Like Right to Life Proponents today.

If ya got a cause you're gonna push it. Anything wrong in that?

don't they realize they are wasting time?
my point is they are Americans and are equal. They are making a big deal out of nothing. Really nothing.

Are they being throne in prison no. So what do they have to complain about but some Christians that hate them. we all have people that hate us so chill.

Oh boy. They percieve that their rights are denied and are pushing to have them protected under the law. You might do the same thing if suddenly you were denied the right to have a wife.

Ok your pushing my buttons man. That is not happening dude so you should chill don't make excuses for insanity with insane excuses ok thanks

Re: America is a Democracy so maybe you should hold off!?


disenter512:

Although we elect our representatives democratically, the United States of America is not a pure democracy -- it is a republic. This means the United States is a nation ruled by law (the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land); our government is one of limited powers; we are not residents of a nation ruled by the mob.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

States must comply with the Fourteenth Amendment whether the majority wants to or not. Therefore, your argument that the majority rules is inherently wrong.

I wish our schools would teach our children elementary information concerning our political system. It's embarrassing that so many citizens have no idea how our constitutional republic is supposed to work.

If this information pushes your buttons and makes you insane, you should probably chill and delve into self-education. There are no insane excuses for demonstrating total ignorance concerning the fundamental basis upon which your government is founded.

I'd like to see where this one goes. I'll keep my powder dry.

KP

... or a husband.

America is a Democracy. Ok, so vote.

God Bless America


God Bless America and the Republic for which it stands.

Oh, you didn't like my explanation of a "Republic." You still want the "D" word. LOL Okay. Try this explanation:

Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Democracy or Republic
By Lawrence W. Reed

We are not a democracy. We are a republic--which is a representative form of government that captures the best elements of democracy while jettisoning its worst. Too many people throw around that term "democracy" without understanding what it means. If they understood it, they would realize that they're probably not advocates of its purest form, which would mean that we decide every matter by majority vote. Perhaps ancient Athens for a brief time came closest to this, but no society of any size and complexity can practice this form of governance for very long. It's unwieldy and unworkable, endlessly contentious, and disrespectful of certain inalienable rights of individuals who may find themselves in the minority.

People like the sound of "democracy" because it implies that all of us have equal say in our government and that a simple majority is somehow inherently fair in deciding all or virtually all issues. Upon closer examination, it should become very apparent that subjecting every decision of governance to a vote of the people is utterly impossible. Many decisions have to be made quickly; many decisions require knowledge of the issue that few people possess or have the time to become expert on; and many decisions don't belong in the hands of any government at all.

An example of the last point: Suppose someone says, "I just don't like people with red hair. I think we should confiscate their property. Let's have a vote on that." A democratic purist would have to reply, "All in favor say aye." A person interested in securing and protecting individual rights would have to say, "That's not a proper function of government, and even if 99 percent of the citizens vote for that, it's still wrong and illegitimate. There's nothing about mob rule that makes such a decision legitimate. There is never, anywhere or any time, any justification for any government to take someone's property just because he has red hair, and no pile of votes or dimpled chads can change that. Is that anti-democratic? Yes, it is. Some things, like individual rights, are infinitely more important than the notion that Jim and Sally Taxeater want to stick their grubby little fingers into Joe Taxpayer's pockets."

So if I were in a debate on this subject, I'd be tempted to say, "We're not a democracy any more than we're a divine right monarchy. Period. Next question?"

A republican form of government modifies pure democracy considerably. It provides a mechanism whereby almost anyone can have some say in some matters of government. We can run for office. We can support candidates and causes of our choosing. We can speak out in public forums. And, indeed, a few matters are actually decided by majority vote. But a sound republic founded on principles that are more important than voting (like individual rights) will put strong limits on all this. In its Bill of Rights, our Constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law . . ." It doesn't say, "Congress can pass anything it wants so long as 50 percent plus 1 support it even if none of the voters know a thing about the issue." How brainless and destructive that would be! If some debater wants to say "We're a democracy" then you could fire back, "Then explain why there's a laundry list of things our Constitution says not even Congress can make a law about."

Bottom line: We are not Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves. We are not a pack of wolves and a handful of sheep voting on what to have for lunch. We're a republic with certain limitations on what the mob can do to others who are not members of the same mob.

If 99% of Americans said homosexuals had no rights it would be all the more reason for them to struggle, not less. As has been pointed out, we are a representative democracy, meaning the least should be protected from the majority as well as the majority protected from the least. In short, if a million citizens voted to strip me of my rights, the law would prevent their doing this.

dissenter512, the majority rules right? If that would be the case, my country (to give an example) would have been totally different than it is now. Some 50 years ago, a majority of the people were in favor of 'de handelsonbekwaamheid van de vrouw' - the principle that women were INCOMPETENT to make large purchases. Some 50 years ago, the majority of the people believed Indonesia should stay part of the Dutch Kingdom, or else: 'Indië verloren, rampspoed geboren!' - (Dutch) Indies (Indonesia) lost, disaster born. Just two examples where the majority of the people was a supporter of what nowadays would contradict with what we believe. Now, the Netherlands isn't the USA. But I hope you DO understand the underlying message: what the majority rules, is not always the correct thing to do.

Re: America is a Democracy so maybe you should hold off!?

That's a statement of hope, not a description of reality.
You might want to struggle to make it a reality.

Re: America is a Democracy so maybe you should hold off!?


You can't be serious! You can actually sit here and say that gays already have equal right! Hello!!!!!!!!!!

#1. Gays cannot get married.

#2. Gays have no benefits if their partners die.

Gays do not have equal right and if they did, they wouldn't be fighting for those rights, would they?

Wrong. No majority doesn't always rule. The constitution is set up to protect the MINORITY against majority rule. This is what keeps the "balance" because the majority can't always be trusted to do what is right and what is lawful.

For example- You state could have a 51% majority that wishes to bring back segragated schools. In this case would the majority rule? NO because laws exist that binds each state by law. Therefore the majority's opinions are irrelevant. Just as they are in the case of gay marriage.


No, that is what we have LAWS that disallow discriminiation. That includes EVERY single American. So if you are an American and are being denied a RIGHT that is enjoyed by every other American then you are being discriminated against. If you are not being hired because you are black, muslim, a woman or gay then that is discrimination which is illegal and against the principles of this country. Would you tell the black man that he should stop whining because he isn't allowed to live in a nice neighborhood because there are prefectly good ghettos for him to live in? It's the same kind of twisted unamerican logic.



Spiritual and "people saying things about them" that doesn't even make sense. One had nothing to do with the other. My guess is if someone told you that you weren't allowed to say anything, nothing, zilch that you being a say "jackass" precluded you from enjoying the right to Free Speech then you would most certainly sue wouldn't you? Or are you saying that you would do nothing?

Self absorbed? You don't even bother to be specific or research what Gay's have given to their country which is a lot.

I think if anyone needs to get over themselves it could be you. See your opinion is irrelevant, your "spirituality" is irrelevant, and your comfort level is irrelevant. This is about a fundamental right of any American to live as all other Americans live. It's about Equality and that is something you either support or you don't. When you deny even one person the same rights as anyone else then you no longer support equality and you no longer support America's ideals.

I feel the need to point out, once again, that gays have the exact SAME rights as hetero's do. There is no discrimination.

The fact is, gays CAN get married just like everybody else. They just have to marry a consenting person of legal age of the opposite sex to do so, just like everybody else. The system is perfectly equal as it is. If gays are given the right to marry and this is not granted to other non-gays who wish to form into family groups to get benefits of marriage, the system becomes unequal.

The issue is not whether gays have equal rights in this regard. They do.

The issue is that gays want the same benefits afforded married people--rights of inheritance, shared insurance, hospital visitation etc. And I strongly support gays or anybody else being able to legally form themselves into family groups in order to have these benefits.

I just want them to call it somethng other than marriage.

So what you're implying is that they must marry who YOU think is appropriate rather then who then actually want to marry?


The issue is if they have rights and they don't. Blacks and Whites were able to marry too, but they weren't allowed to MARRY EACH OTHER. Are you saying that was equality?

I will never get this sudden idea that the word "marriage" means so much. If so where is the outrage when people use it in other forms? Why don't we make divorce illegal is marriage is such an untouched pure word and it's meaning so untouchable?

It's a WORD it means as much as you want it to. It has NOTHING to do with LAW.

Unbelievable!!!

No Redheat, they should marry legally like everybody else. In most (all?) states, the definition of marriage is one man, one woman.
There is nothing in the law that requires the parties to love each other, give a flying fig about each other, or want to marry each other. It is a legal civil contract providing with certain requirements built in and certain benefits built in.

It is those benefits that gay people say they want. So would a lot of same sex straight people who, for whatever reason, would like to have those benefits.

To refuse to compromise in this matter is nothing short of pure ideology. The extreme right should back off and allow corrections of inequities that exist.

And the extreme left, including the militant gays, should back off and allow a national tradition of marriage to remain as it has always been for the benefit of children if for no other reason.

Let everybody have the benefits. The anti-gay marriage people shut up and leave the others alone. And the others pick another word than marriage for it.

In my way of thinking, those who cannot see the value and wisdom of this have far sharper bigger axes to grind than providing equal rights for gays.