So, with the disgrace that was proposition 8............you/I could kind of assume that it was due to the ignorance and down hypocrisy of some of the groups of voters.
Now, with the appeal going to the California Supreme Court............they have upheld the ban! but allowed the marriages performed when there was no ban to stand.
I mean how cowardly..............what say you?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/ca ... topstories
Ps: I dont mean dicuss whether its right or wrong, because its wrong and anyone who says different............is wrong.
So, I want to discuss the issue of what the f*ck is wrong with people in California, considering its supposed to be one of, if not the most liberal state???
Here you can chat about anything that's not Warriors related.
You may want to start analyzing what's wrong with democracy first, because that's exactly what happened here.
People voted no to gay marriages, so the high court rule was exactly what had to happen. Those that took place while it was allowed are valid, but not a single one after the voting. Democracy at its best.
Well yeah, on a "bigger picture" scale yes.............but is democracy going to change? be over-thrown as a governmental system anytime soon?...........nope.
So its got to start and eventually/hopefully come from small changes.
I dont understand how things like this can be put to the vote of the people...........simply because most people are stupid, and when you are talking about the human rights of individuals, how can it be left to large numbers of ignorant bastards to decide what is right for a certain people?
Were Civil Rights put to a public vote? nope, it was passed by people who realised that it was simply wrong and as such the general population had to learn to deal with their predjudice and accept that people who dont look like them are also people.
So now, when concerning people who dont think like "them" and dont act like "them".............why are the general public allowed to decide how gay people live their lives?
It's not a "bigger picture" scale, Bigs. We're saying exactly the same thing. A democracy can't work if people is not responsible enough to think by themselves what's wrong and what's right. More often than not, the media, political stances, celebrities or, simply, other people end up telling what to vote, and that nullifies the validity of the whole system.
That's exactly what's happening here. The system doesn't work because we (as a whole) ain't ready for it to work.
The problem is that "democracy" or not we have all, by living in this nation, consented to live under the government and to abide by the United States Constitution. Having done that we have give the government the power to protect our property (which includes ourselves). However, by governing things like marriage the U.S. government has overstepped their purpose and are functioning as a dictatorship. How does gay marriage effect your safety, health, or personal possessions? It does not in any way and therefore should be irrelevant to the government.
Bottom line, the ban on gay marriage, whether voted on by the people or not, is unconstitutional and should not in any way be upheld. While the people are influenced by their beliefs (such as religion), there is a separation between church and state for a reason. The government must remain neutral and cannot allow the people to form policy based on religious reasons.
But I'll stop now before I start getting onto the subject of how badly we have failed as the American people to uphold our part in maintaining a well functioning government. And how we have allowed special interests and money or overrun the will of the people.
I completely agree Capt. The government should not be involved in this and I too believe that the ban is unconstitutional. Should have never even been allowed to go to vote.
It deprives people of civil rights and should not have been allowed to go to a vote.
What if I got a bunch of signature to put a proposition on the ballot to "ban the right of african americans to have children". Regardless of whether 90% of California's population wanted it, it would NEVER be put on the ballot because it is unconstitutional. I see no difference with same sex marriage.
But guys, the whole point is that this was brought about by the people of California!!!..............yes it was created by some right wing piece of sh*t but the simple fact is, that that right wing piece of sh*t put this bill to the people of California and the majority AGREED!
This wasnt a senate issue, this wasnt something that the government as a whole did (hence the fact that it isnt a country wide ban on gay marriage)................this was a local/state issue.
Nowadays, a country wide ban of gay marriage would never pass through the senate or the house, because its too sensitive an issue and the representatives would all be too affraid of losing votes and seats.
This is my point, and the reason for me bringing up the Civil Rights Act.............as that was a senate bill, put forth by people in government who knew it was wrong, and could not be opposed because of that............hence it became legislation.
This was a state proposition, put to the people of California, not from "big government", not for America as a whole............it was for California.
So again, I say to you.................this is not a "Ohh, lets change Democracy" issue, because that isnt going to happen unless there is a westernised world revolution...........which wont happen either because people are either too lazy or apathetic.
This is a state by state issue, that should be mused over in small amounts, so as then to create some kind of momentum from one of these types of bills being voted against, and then the rest will follow.
The thing that makes me sad and question the Californians who voted for this, is that they have a rich history of voting the right way on similar issues!!! race bills have often been passed first and pionered in California...............just not this time.
Bigs you have to understand though that it is a state/local issue because the federal government refuses to touch it because they're afraid of stirring the pot with their investors/interest groups. Again, not trying to get into that issue.
This should never have been put to a vote because it is a violation of the United State constitution, and local/state measure or not, the Constitution supercedes any state sovereignty.
Of course I understand that..........very much so............and that is largely the point.
Because it wont go before the senate, because as you say, they are affraid of losing certain investors and voters, IT NEEDS to happen and be allowed on a local level so investors and other voters in other states see that it doesnt affect anything negatively and wont bring the world to an end.
Ive made this point 3 times now, so I dont really get what Im saying wrong..............the government as a whole can/wont/couldnt rule on gay marriage being allowed, we know that, nothing can be done about it at this stage..............but it can be allowed on a local level!!!
And if California had allowed it to stand, then more states would begin to follow, then other voters/congressmen and women, governors, investors would all see that it isnt as bad as they think and then hey..........you may see a bill going to the senate for it.
But as this happened, its even further away.
Ps: We can blame the government as a whole and exonerate ourselves from any blame because "Ohh its the government, they are evil, so I cant do anything about it".............but the simple fact is, and the reason for me creating this thread and the point Ive tried to make 3 times now is.............THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA VOTED FOR IT! the goverment didnt force this legislation on them.
So how do things like this change? they change by peoples perceptions of them changing and that growing into a wider acceptance, which then brings the government to realise that it can be put through the senate.
I'm no expert in the american Constitution, so I'm restraining from posting here at lot more. But, according to our Constitution, the government is in charge of civil law of any kind, so it falls right in his lap. Not that I like it on a general level, but at times, it helps when society ain't willing to vote for what's right...
Issues of civil/human rights shouldnt be voted for or against by the people of that country, when they arent ready to make the right and civil/human decision on them.
Like with the Civil Rights Act........do you guys really think that that would have passed into legislation if it had been put the people of America? and not just the senate..........hell no it wouldnt have.
Over here its the same as you TMC............we have gay marriages..........and it just became law, there was no vote, no protest, no religious bullsh*t surrounding it...........it was just the right and civil thing to do, so it was done and there hasnt been an ounce of trouble/protest/appeal since it was implemented.
So I ask my American bubs here for the 4th time............why do you think the people of California, a historically accepting and freedom fighting/pioneering in terms of civil rights legislation campaingning state...........why did they do this?
California was one of the first states to vote on and allow interracial marriages and various other things over the course of the last century...........so why arent they ready for this issue?
Oh I am most definitely not exonerating the people, bottom line, democracy starts and ends with us. It is OUR fault that the government is the way it is, I was just pointing out the reality of the situation that California is in. This issue shouldn't even be determined by a vote, had the people done their job correctly then the government would be doing theirs correctly as well.
However people, on a whole, have failed to maintain even a mediocre understanding of the constitution and its parameters and have let the "democracy machine" run itself. This has created the monster we are most currently dealing with. By allowing the government to function without the active participation of the people we have permitted certain groups to overstep their boundaries and have an inordinate amount of influence over policy decisions. We are so busy arguing about who's agenda is better, Republicans or Democrats, that we've all forgotten that it's not about political parties, but rather about upholding the standards of Democracy as set forth by early political theorists and the founders of the United States.
Why reading and/or being taught Locke's Second Treatise and the Federalist Papers isn't required in every Elementary school across the country I don't know. But nothing could be more relevant to an American Citizen than understanding the foundations and intentions of our governmental structure. Richard Dreyfuss has a foundation set up to help get civics classes back into early childhood education, I can't remember the name of it, but I'm sure it's not hard to find. It's definitely a step in the right direction, but we have a long way to go.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests