| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Judge rules that "Proposition 8" is unconstitutional; ...breaking news | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 4 2010, 12:49 PM (4,092 Views) | |
| Dewey | Aug 6 2010, 04:59 AM Post #126 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Sometimes, the tail needs to wag the dog. That's the whole idea behind a republican form of government. Steve has already pointed several examples where that was most definitely the case. Another would be the very declaration of our independence from England itself - which at the time, was favored by only an estimated thirty-some percent of the population. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 6 2010, 05:16 AM Post #127 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
To the original issue, and the compromise idea: Because marriage conveys certain rights and benefits to couples in order to foster a strong family unit, it should either allow "marriage" to both traditional and same-sex couples; or it should stop issuing "marriage" licenses altogether, and simply license "civil unions," "domestic unions," "family corporations," or whatever they want to call them, and which confers all the rights, benefits and obligations that we have assigned to "marrige." That's the equal treatment under the law that the civil government owes to all of its citizenry. If the state chooses option A, religious institutions and its individual clergy should have the right to not officiate those marriages that they oppose on religious grounds. If the state chose option B, then any religious institution can agree or disagree with performing a "marriage" based on its own system of beliefs. If that sort of compromise would make people happy, fine. Either way, it really does boil down to a rose being a rose by any other name. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Aug 6 2010, 05:36 AM Post #128 |
|
MAMIL
|
I suspect a number of our most outspoken American patriots would have been British loyalists if they'd lived back then. Let's face it, the founders were a bunch of radicals, and conservatives simply abhor change.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Aug 6 2010, 05:39 AM Post #129 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
You'd be wrong. A whole lot of conservatives are watching our current government very closely right now. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Aug 6 2010, 05:45 AM Post #130 |
|
MAMIL
|
And as soon as the other bunch of crooks get in, a whole lot of conservatives will stop admitting the whole system is f*cked up and will go back to their GOP-funded Koolaid. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Aug 6 2010, 05:56 AM Post #131 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Snarkiness aside, I don't think anybody here has referred to anything remotely connected to coerced marriage. So that's a total red herring. But I'll give you something concrete to ponder...the case for gay marriage is based upon the Equal Protection clause found in the 14th Amendment, and upon law extrapolated from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Given that sodomy was illegal in all 50 states in 1964, how can the proponents of gay marriage point to that 1964 act and argue with a straight face that it pertains to them? SCOTUS has long held that the Amendment may be breached by law, if the State can make the argument that a compelling State interest would be abbrogated by enforcement of the Amendment. I would say that the nuclear family, the one man/one woman family is an overiding and compelling state interest. Yes, even with our Constitution, sometimes the survival of the State trumps the supposed rights of the individual. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Aug 6 2010, 05:58 AM Post #132 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
You sure do bark a lot about the dogpound, when you don't have a dog in the fight. I think it's about time you started the citizenship process, so you can suffer with the rest of us... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Aug 6 2010, 06:14 AM Post #133 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
In the Prop 8 case the judge held that no such case could be made. He could find no compelling argument that allowing gays to marry threatened traditional marriage. I have never heard one that made any sense myself. Perhaps you can offer one. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Dan | Aug 6 2010, 06:17 AM Post #134 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Good. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Aug 6 2010, 06:28 AM Post #135 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I don't believe you are correct. According to what I've read on the matter, every state except New York and Pennsylvania voted for independence - votes that were made by majority decision. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Aug 6 2010, 06:28 AM Post #136 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
None that would suit you. It doesn't matter if the arguments have been trotted out before or that we are playing with fire concerning the most fundamental building block of our society. Many people today are so concerned with pseudo-rights, they do not see the cracks spreading throughout society. This can only end in one way - the dissolution of the country as we know it. Perhaps we shall have to undergo a revolution. Perhaps we shall be conquered from without. But I fear that your great grandchildren will no longer be free men. And that is the most precious right of all. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Aug 6 2010, 06:32 AM Post #137 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
I suspect gay marriage will be overturned under Sharia. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Aug 6 2010, 06:36 AM Post #138 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Fastest growing religion in the world. And a mighty large voting block in the U.S. People like Steve spit everytime they have to say the word, "evangelical"...I think a day is coming when he'll long for the day those reasonable evangelicals has any political clout at all. He'll have plenty of time to think as he's spreading out his prayer rug and facing east. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Aug 6 2010, 06:36 AM Post #139 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
It isn't the judge's place to decide that. The people voted against it, and that is the expression of the will of the people. The courts' job is to rule based on the will of the people - in case you didn't know it, the PEOPLE are in charge, not the government. As for compelling arguments about allowing gays to marry threatening traditional marriage - anyone who can't figure that one out within about 5 seconds is too far gone to matter. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Aug 6 2010, 06:49 AM Post #140 |
|
MAMIL
|
I suffer along with the rest of you, since I pay taxes. However, I'm only in purgatory, whereas you're in hell. As far as citizenship goes - I'm still waiting for a bloody green-card. It's only been 7 years, after all. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 6 2010, 08:02 AM Post #141 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Only New York abstained; the vote for independence was 12-1. More to my point, those voting were a selected few, delegates specifically appointed by the states' legislatures. The delegates were removed from simple democratic majority by three levels, and they ultimately voted for what they believed they was in the overall best interest for the colonies - not what the simple majority of the general public wished for. In this case, and in many others in our representative, republican form of government, it was appropriate and correct for the tail to wag the dog. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Aug 6 2010, 09:09 AM Post #142 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I would also hold this up as an example of where the public will hardens against "the gov't". As the British fought the war I suspect the bulk of the population switched sides rather quickly and in fact was the basis of the American sentiment that says, "Don't tell us what to do!" |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Aug 6 2010, 12:26 PM Post #143 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
You are mistaken about it being a case of the tail wagging the dog. The dog was in near unanimous agreement. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 6 2010, 01:23 PM Post #144 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You're mistaking what is the tail, and what is the dog. The delegates to the Continental Congress were just as much the tail of the dog as are modern-day federal judges, or elected representatives who have been chartered to use their consciences to work in the best interests of the people - the dog - sometimes even when their opinion differs from the simple majority opinion of the populace. It is precisely that concept that we wanted to ensconce when we adopted a democratically elected republican form of government. The founders recognized that the good of the people will sometimes need to be protected from the will of the people - or put another way, sometimes the tail has to wag the dog. It has done so many times in our history, sometimes unwisely and other times quite wisely, but the fact remains that the concept was deliberately enshrined in our form of government to prevent governance by simple plebiscite. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Aug 6 2010, 01:56 PM Post #145 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Well I know I'm just a poor old simple minded Southern boy and all, but my reading of this conversation is that the decision to declare our independence was a viewpoint only held by a minority of people, and that the argument being made is that the elected officials voted for it anyway. Now if I'm wrong about that being the argument put forth, please correct me - because from what I've read about the issue, the majority of people in the several states supported the notion of independence, and quite strongly. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 6 2010, 02:03 PM Post #146 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Oh no, you're correct in understanding what I said. I'm just telling you that you're mistaken about your assumption that the thought of going to war to secure our independence was wildly supported by the majority of the population. At the outset, the majority did not - in fact, the New York delegates did not abstain because of their personal disagreement, but because their state legislature specifically prohibited them from voting in favor of declaring independence from England. Several other states had to obtain clarification, or modification, of their written charges in order to so vote. And the war became even less popular among the general population during its darkest days. Our independence was declared only through the tail wagging the dog - just as many other positive aspects in our history have occurred. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Aug 6 2010, 02:14 PM Post #147 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Ah, good. Now it's clear what we're disagreeing about. And I stand by my reading of that issue, which is that while it would be silly to say that *anyone* "wildly" desired a war, the truth is the vast majority of the people wanted independence from Britain, voted for it, and if war was what was needed to make it happen, then they were ready to do it. So I disagree with your assessment that the tail wagged the dog, since the dog wanted independence. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 6 2010, 07:43 PM Post #148 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Disagree all you'd like, Larry, but the facts are otherwise - the majority of the American population did not want independence from England at the time it was declared, and they most certainly did not vote for it. This is historical fact. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Aug 6 2010, 11:17 PM Post #149 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Not according to what I've read. http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/american_war_of_independence.htm "Colonists were divided over which side to support in the war; in some areas, the struggle was a civil war. The Revolutionaries (also known as Americans or Patriots) had the active support of about 40 to 45 percent of the colonial population. About 15 to 20 percent of the population supported the British Crown during the war, and were known as Loyalists (or Tories). Loyalists fielded perhaps 50,000 men during the war years in support of the British Empire. After the war, some 70,000 Loyalists departed the United States, most going to Canada, Great Britain, or to British colonies in the Caribbean." If that information is correct, then only about 15-20% were against independence. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 7 2010, 03:44 AM Post #150 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Larry, read your own quote. According to it, only an estimated 40-45% of the general public supported the patriots. The remainder were either Loyalists (i.e., those who didn't merely oppose independence, but who openly supported the actions of the Crown); those who disagreed with the Crown's actions but nevertheless did not support declaring independence; or those who were neutral for religious or political reasons. As I've gone back to double check my earlier mention of 30%, I found that the number cited by most sources these days is actually the 40-45% range that is cited in your own source, and I'm willing to accept that my number was a little low. But even using the higher number that you've offered yourself, my point remains: the desire to actually declare independence from England was the minority opinion within the colonies, and when the delegates to the Continental Congress voted in favor of it, they were not simply rubber stamping the will of the majority of the people. The tail wagged the dog, for perhaps the first, but definitely not the last, time in American history. And as pointed out earlier, the need to be able to do this was deliberately embedded within our Constitutional form of government, in order to protect against the "tyranny of the majority." As Madison wrote about this in the Federalist Papers: (apologies for the Wikipedia sourcing, but it's pretty much just a quotation of the original document) The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. He defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred. However, he thinks "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 In other words, the framers of the Constitution saw a need for the tail to sometimes wag the dog - and expressed it in the very concept of a federal form of government, the three independent branches of government, the nature of our bicameral legislative body, the Electoral College, and other ways. Elected, designated, or appointed government representatives have been the tail that wagged the dog numerous time throughout our history, both for better and for worse. But the political idea that it is a proper role of government to sometimes rule against a majority opinion of the population is something that is part of the very fabric of our American government. We may like some occasions where it occurs, or we may dislike it in other instances. But to argue that a particular action on the part of the government is improper simply on the basis that it doesn't comport with majority opinion, is to argue against the type of government that was deliberately shaped by, and that we enjoy under, our Constitution. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










4:56 PM Jul 10