Commenting on this week's oral arguments in the marriage case before the California Supreme Court, Dale Carpenter writes:
if gay-marriage litigants do lose the case, the loss may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the gay-marriage movement as a whole. On the one hand, a pro-SSM ruling from the California high court would lead to a state-wide voter initiative to amend the state constitution to ban not only gay marriage but legislatively created civil unions as well. Nobody knows how that vote would turn out, but I would not be confident of a victory for gay marriage. That has always been a serious risk of this California litigation.
On the other hand, a ruling that leaves the issue to the state legislature (which has twice voted to recognize gay marriage) and the governor (who has twice vetoed gay-marriage legislation, deferring the issue to this litigation) will mean that this issue will be resolved democratically.
We've been through this before: either you believe that gay marriage is a new civil right that should be enforced by the courts, or you believe that (with the sole exception of uber-liberal Massachusetts) it's counter-productive to achieve a court victory that creates a voter backlash, enshrining a ban on legal recognition of gay unions into state constitutions. It then follows that giving the electorate a few years to get comfortable with civil unions is the best path to securing eventual marriage equality.
Quite unrelatedly, the Washington Post looks at Hillary's gay supporters in Texas, some of whom find Obama's lack of actual experience troubling.
On the other hand:
[Clinton supporter] Gribben, 64, gives a short history lesson and names all of Clinton's contributions to the gay community. She was the first first lady to march in a gay pride parade. She's fought for more HIV funds. She wants to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," though it was her husband who signed the controversial military policy toward gays. She's for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and supports civil unions.
To which could also be added, "although her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act (and bragged about it in his re-election ads on radio in the South)."
34 Comments for “Marriage and Such”
posted by Drew Perraut on
Uh, I thought you could also believe (3) that it certainly is a civil right but that it would be tactically unwise to enforce that right via courts at this particular moment.
The government is not/should not be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians based on an arbitrary characteristic. How you want that basic principle of a well-ordered society enforced is just a tactical question.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
How could a favorable court ruling in this case be described as counter-democratic when a majority of Californians supports civil marriage equality, and the state legislature has twice passed a marriage bill? It is only the veto pen of one man that has blocked it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
How could a favorable court ruling in this case be described as counter-democratic when a majority of Californians supports civil marriage equality, and the state legislature has twice passed a marriage bill?
Which is why, I suppose, that “Equality” California and other such organizations adamantly refuse to put the issue to a statewide vote, as is required by the California Constitution to repeal an existing voter proposition (in this case, Proposition 22), and instead try legal chicanery and ramrodding matters through the gerrymandered and hopelessly-unrepresentative California Legislature.
But only in non-election years, of course.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, this is a republic. We do not decide everything by plebiscite, such as via a device connected to the television as Ross Perot advocated. We have legislatures. They make a greater amount of informed deliberation possible. Are you suggesting we abolish legislatures? Whether we seek our equality via the courts or the legislatures, we are told it is illegitimate. If the courts and legislatures are illegitimate (as opposed to a particular strategy merely being unwise or untimely), then we could save a lot of money by abolishing courts and legislatures. I don’t favor anarchy nor tyranny, so I don’t favor those options. The fact is that the goalposts are continually being moved against us. In general, I agree that we should be spending more of our energies in statehouses than in courthouses. But in the case of California, the case against taking it to court is not a strong one.
posted by Rob on
ND30, here’s an article for you related to the subject Rosendall speaks of. Even though it’s written by Pat Buchanan, I hope it educates you on the evils of ochlocracy.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=5015
And you already damn well know that proposition 22 only covers out of state marriages. So if the California State Legislature and the governor legalize same-sex marriage, proposition 22 won’t negate it at all.
posted by Karen on
“Whether we seek our equality via the courts or the legislatures, we are told it is illegitimate. If the courts and legislatures are illegitimate … then we could save a lot of money by abolishing courts and legislatures.”
Proposition 22 exists – and by the constitution of CA, I believe it does, unfortunately, trump the legislature. The argument that the court decision in MA is illegitimate is nonsense. The courts clearly have that authority. But this California issue… well, technically, if you read proposition 22 broadly instead of as the “loophole closer” for out of state marriages that it clearly was intended to be, it kind of makes sense that it would have to be repealed through the constitutionally correct process (voter approval) before it can be superceded by the legislature.
Of course, I question California’s wisdom in circumventing the representative democratic process in this manner in favor of direct democracy. There’s no reason they couldn’t have closed the “loophole” through the legislature. If enough people care about the issue, if the lobbyists can be persuasive enough, then it will pass. If not… gee, sorry. You lost. Try again next year. Elect some people who agree with you. Or you could try to make an argument to the courts based on the current laws and constitution of the state.
This fourth player in the normally three-part checks and balances system is not a good idea. The electorate, taken as a whole, is ignorant and gullible about every issue. It’s only when you look at individuals that you find someone who is well-informed and rational about any particular issue. In the three-part system, we pay our legislators to be well-informed and rational about any issue they are asked to vote on. It’s not perfect, but mob rule is far worse!
So, California, maybe you should rethink that whole “voter proposition” idea. Does anyone know how many states have a similar electorate-driven process that trumps the legislature?
posted by Karen on
Not that it’s necessary to have such a process in order to circumvent the representational system.
In my state of birth, Florida, for example, there was the memorable “pregnant pig” constitutional amendment. They also amended the constitution to include a smoking ban and something about fishing nets. Laudable goals all, I’m sure, but constitutions are not intended to govern farm practices and public air quality.
I despair of it all. We’re doomed.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, this is a republic. We do not decide everything by plebiscite, such as via a device connected to the television as Ross Perot advocated. We have legislatures.
According to the Constitution, we the people are allowed to amend, change, or otherwise alter our system of government as we see fit. We have already made several changes that make our government more democratic, such as expanding the right to vote, or changing to direct election for Senators.
The reason California (and for that matter, Texas) have the style of government that they do, in which the Legislature is very tightly constrained and subject to simple override by the people, is because the founders of both states had ample experience with the First Mexican Republic — which had a constitution very similar to the United States, but whose legislature and executive, packed with people who believed that voters were “stupid and gullible” and that they knew what was “best” for voters, basically set aside the law and ruled by fiat, changing the election laws and the districting to ensure their continued re-election and using the power of the state to force compliance (not unlike Hugo Chavez is doing today). Hence, California and Texas both built in mechanisms by which the legislature and the executive could be easily and quickly suborned without having to wait for an election (the recall) or directly overridden by plebiscite (the voter proposition).
It should surprise no one that gays and lesbians prefer to avoid the plebiscite. After all, people who say that voters are “ignorant and gullible about every issue” is never going to convince the thousands of people in a legislative district to agree with them; however, by simply purchasing a corrupt representative or finding a judge with an exaggerated notion of their own power, they can effectively nullify the votes of thousands of people.
What is most hilarious is how liberal gays and lesbians insist that the people whose names lead off the Constitution should have no power to vote to change or amend it as they see fit — when it is one of those very amendments they are trying to cite as proof that they should have what they want.
posted by Karen on
“After all, people who say that voters are “ignorant and gullible about every issue” is never going to convince the thousands of people in a legislative district to agree with them; however, by simply purchasing a corrupt representative or finding a judge with an exaggerated notion of their own power, they can effectively nullify the votes of thousands of people.”
You think that the electorate as a whole is well-informed and rational about every issue?
OOOOOooook….
You don’t like representational democracy in a constitutional republic? Go start your own country somewhere else. Or, you know, convince us to change our government.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You think that the electorate as a whole is well-informed and rational about every issue?
I believe you already stated, Karen, that gays and lesbians like yourself believe that the voters are “ignorant and gullible about EVERY issue”. You believe that voters know nothing about anything, the corrollary being that they obviousl need people who consider themselves their intellectual betters (like yourself) to do their thinking for them as their “representatives”.
The irony here is that if people are so incompetent that they know nothing about any issues, how on earth can they effectively pick their representatives? Do you support intelligence and literacy tests at the polls to determine whether or not a person is informed enough to choose who will represent them?
Furthermore, according to you, even legislators are not expected to know everything; they are “paid to” review information and make decisions on their own. However, you imply that regular voters are so ignorant and gullible that they can’t do the same thing on issues that concern them.
You don’t like representational democracy in a constitutional republic?
Problem is, Karen, what you’re doing is not “representational”. You’re claiming the people are too “ignorant and gullible” to make decisions for themselves, so you have to decide what’s “best” for them; what they decide is always wrong, since they are “ignorant and gullible about EVERY issue”. You don’t represent them; you’re merely using them as an excuse to push your own agenda.
As far as changing government goes, the funny part is that you already have; because of arrogant people like yourself, the American electorate has rediscovered its power over the courts and the legislature through direct democracy, and have put in place numerous constitutional amendments to block people who are contemptuous of the electorate like yourself.
posted by KamatariSeta on
“”According to the Constitution, we the people are allowed to amend, change, or otherwise alter our system of government as we see fit. We have already made several changes that make our government more democratic, such as expanding the right to vote, or changing to direct election for Senators.””
While it may be a simple matter to vote in a constitutional amendment on a state level, the
founders saw that it was much more difficult and involved to make drastic, sweeping changes on the federal level. They made it possible to alter the system of government on even fundamental levels, but the more drastic that alteration, the more difficult it is to accomplish, to protect the government from the temporary passions of the masses.
posted by Rob on
Proposition 22 exists – and by the constitution of CA, I believe it does, unfortunately, trump the legislature. The argument that the court decision in MA is illegitimate is nonsense. The courts clearly have that authority. But this California issue… well, technically, if you read proposition 22 broadly instead of as the “loophole closer” for out of state marriages that it clearly was intended to be, it kind of makes sense that it would have to be repealed through the constitutionally correct process (voter approval) before it can be superceded by the legislature.
Wrong, the amendment was placed in the wrong clause. If same-sex marriage passes in California, same-sex marriages performed in California will be recognized, however out of state same-sex marriages still won’t be recognized, since the amended clause only affects .
posted by Jorge on
Clinton and Obama both have a mix of baggage and merits when it comes to supporting gays. Obama is more frightening simply because his record is shorter. You know Clinton is “eh.” Obama could flip-flop into being a disaster.
posted by Karen on
“You’re claiming the people are too “ignorant and gullible” to make decisions for themselves, so you have to decide what’s “best” for them;”
No. The electorate understands that – and this is important – AS A WHOLE we are not qualified to make most governing decisions.
It’s not that any average individual, plucked out of the group, could not learn enough about any particular issue to make the decision. It’s not even that the average individual does not know enough about a few issues to make an informed decision about those specific issues. It’s that as a whole, we don’t know everything about everything. Who has the time?
For instance, although I am highly educated about equal protection and issues related to marriage, I know next to nothing about trade agreements. What’s more, I don’t really care to. I pay my legislator to care about everything, so that I can care about one or two enough to then go back and talk to my legislator about THOSE things.
So, it is not me who makes decisions for us, but rather it is us who elect the people whose job it is to learn enough to make the decisions for us. But you just want to make me out to be elitist, instead of understanding that this is what representational democracy is.
posted by Karen on
“Wrong, the amendment was placed in the wrong clause.”
That’s what I meant by “if you read it broadly”. I really meant more “out of context” than “broadly”, sorry for the lack of clarity there.
posted by Karen on
“Furthermore, according to you, even legislators are not expected to know everything; they are “paid to” review information and make decisions on their own. However, you imply that regular voters are so ignorant and gullible that they can’t do the same thing on issues that concern them.”
Again, you’re trying to make it sound like I’m saying that the individual people are ignorant and gullible. Cute, but no. It’s the GROUP dynamic that I’m talking about. Because groups, in case you don’t know, are made up of MANY individuals. Some of these individuals will know enough about, say, pig farming and related issues to be able to make an informed decision about the laws governing pig farming. Most won’t. The informed people should lobby/write/etc, the uninformed people won’t bother to. (Of course, informed/uninformed is not a binary state, but I’m simplifying.) On another issue, another, different group will be informed, but the majority won’t be. And so it goes in a representational democracy.
And it’s not that they can’t learn, it’s that they don’t, because they’re busy doing their jobs and living their lives.
I’m not sure why you put “paid to” in scare quotes. Legislators ARE paid, and that IS their job.
The mob may be discovering its power lately, but let’s not pretend that’s a good thing, mmmkay?
posted by KamatariSeta on
“”The mob may be discovering its power lately, but let’s not pretend that’s a good thing, mmmkay?””
Fear not. The moment “the mob” starts to behave in was ND30 finds unacceptable, he will be on the forefront of praising a Republic style government and decrying majoritarian democracy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The electorate understands that – and this is important – AS A WHOLE we are not qualified to make most governing decisions.
I believe you already stated, Karen, that gays and lesbians like yourself believe that the voters are “ignorant and gullible about EVERY issue”.
Therefore, you have already made it clear that you don’t think voters are qualified to make ANY governing decisions.
Furthermore, your attempts to spin out of that only demonstrate to a greater degree your elitism. You admit that voters can be and are informed. You admit that voters can become even more informed on issues that concern them. Most amusingly, you admit that there’s nothing special about legislators, that they, like voters, do not need to know everything in order to vote. Yet you still insist that voters should never be allowed to vote directly on issues that concern them.
The mob may be discovering its power lately, but let’s not pretend that’s a good thing, mmmkay?
The only way that wouldn’t be a good thing is if one believes that voters should be kept subservient to the whims of their “betters” and should not be allowed to express their own opinions or vote on matters that concern them.
posted by Karen on
“I believe you already stated, Karen, that gays and lesbians like yourself believe that the voters are “ignorant and gullible about EVERY issue”.”
You not understanding what I clearly mean does not make me wrong.
You seem to be unable to grasp the difference between a group and the individuals that make it up.
You seem to be unable to grasp the difference between “Most individuals are ignorant about everything” (not what I have been saying) and “No large group of individuals is well-informed about everything.” (what I HAVE been saying.)
You seem to be unable to grasp the reasoning behind having a representational democracy: that one person has the responsibility to learn and vote and represent a group of people, so that everyone doesn’t have to know everything about everything.
Or, to put it more bluntly, any time you put an issue in front of a large group of people, enough people in the group will not care or know about it to make the group, as a whole, “ignorant”. Ignorant is not a bad word. It’s not “retarded”. It’s just… uninformed. I’m ignorant of many things, but not all. So are you. It’s ok to not know everything. And there’s always going to be someone there to take advantage of ignorance with rhetoric. This means that large groups, taken as a whole, exhibit the characterstics of ignorance and gullibility.
What’s that Demotivator saying? “None of us is as dumb as all of us.”
This little theory you have going of “Karen as elitist meritocracy-supporter” is really dumb. Let go of it. Representational democracy is what it is, and the reasons for it are the reasons for it. Smearing me doesn’t change that. You want direct democracy? You like mob rule? Ok – but that’s not what we have, that’s not what the founders intended for us to have, and there are good reasons for that.
posted by Karen on
Also, I speak for myself, not “gays and lesbians like me”, so even if I were a damned elitist, you’re not allowed to draw conclusions about anyone else based on what *I* say about the reasoning behind representational democracy.
You can go ahead and record that as a standing rule, by the way. I always speak for myself and my own opinions and experiences only. Sometimes – but I’ll never cop to saying this – sometimes I’m talking out of my ass. I might be dead wrong… It has happened before, believe it or not. :o)
This is not one of those times, though.
Just sayin’.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You seem to be unable to grasp the difference between “Most individuals are ignorant about everything” (not what I have been saying) and “No large group of individuals is well-informed about everything.” (what I HAVE been saying.)
Karen, again, I quote you directly, emphasis mine: “ignorant and gullible about every issue“.
That is substantially different than saying they aren’t informed about everything. You made it clear that there is no issue on which you believe voters are informed at all, and that they are in fact completely gullible on every issue.
The irony here is that your use of that theory to try, with the connivance of purchased judges and legislators, to ignore them and do as you will has made people realize that they cannot trust judges or legislators to represent their wishes. Hence, they have resorted to the ultimate trump card that the Founders built in to ensure that elitists who abuse our representative system as an excuse to ignore the voters could be stopped.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I just want to go on record and agree with everything ND30 is saying here. Karen DOES in fact speak for every gay person on the planet and she should learn to wield that power more effectively. Shame on you Karen, for casting aspersions on our dear and innocent defender of liberty ND30. History has shown that his belief that African-Americans should be grateful for slavery is true. I doubt that anyone at the esteemed IGF or, in fact, the world would deny the fact that Buddhists are tree-worshipping cultists (a fact uncovered by our very own ND30.) The medical community is in agreement that the work ND30 has done for anti-needle exchange programs has removed the scourge of discarded spikes from our country’s playgrounds. Bravo ND30, you are truly a hero among men.
posted by Karen on
ND30. Seriously. It’s very simple.
A LARGE GROUP of citizens – the electorate – will only have a small subset of truly informed people for each issue. It’s not the same group every time, but for EVERY issue, there is a majority of citizens that don’t know that much and don’t care that much. So while the electorate may be a dazzling array of highly intelligent people, it still manages to act as an ignorant and gullible entity. It’s the nature of the mob.
It is THE LARGE GROUP, as I have said over and over, that demonstrates the characteristics of ignorance and gullibility for each legislative issue. Not the individuals. And their recourse, if the legislators really ignore their will instead of just making INFORMED decisions, is to elect different legislators who will. Not some kind of “trump card”. That’s why it’s the system of checks and balances, not the system of checks and balances and trump cards.
You have zero understanding of why representational democracy is a good thing. You are only interested in making me look elitist. Ok, goodbye.
posted by Hank on
Thanks for your comments Karen. The only thing I would differ on is that I think ND knows exactly what he’s doing – this is his MO – to take something someone says, pull it out of context, add his own emphasis, and repeat it over and over.
No one is fooled. His comment that you are “arrogant” adds a nice snarky touch also.
The founders set this whole thing up as a representative democracy. They didn’t totally trust the people, as demomstrated by their decision to allow the state legislatures to choose US Senators. So if you’re “elitist” and “arrogant”, you’re in good company.
Funny, Colorado….
posted by Karen on
Thanks, Hank. I definitely appreciate the validation.
It’s so frustrating because I’ve had enough conversations with him that approximate actual civil debate that I’m unable to simply dismiss him as a troll. I am somewhat convinced that he has it in him to be fair and actually does care about the issues, not just getting a rise out of me. Probably all part of his evil plan, though.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Don’t kid yourself Karen, the last thing Northdallass wants to do is be fair. He’s totally committed to the lie.
posted by RIchard on
Getting back to the issue at hand. If the state high court does not overturn the state ban on same-sex marriage, then what next? How would the state amendment be changed?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The Founders put in representative government for three reasons, Karen: one, the rather uneven and scattershot educational background of the US population at the time the Constitution was written; two, the difficulties of communication methods of the time across such a large geography; and three, the realization that quite a bit of government business is impedimenta that must be done, but that consumes a not-inconsiderable amount of time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere without horribly compromising day-to-day governance.
Two out of those three conditions cannot be said to exist today. We have an educational system that can at least be said to bring everyone to a minimum understanding. We have mass communication tools that allow instantaneous communication of every word, every iota a person speaks across the entire country, and which can access vast sums of information with merely a point and click.
Hank is right that our Founders were originally quite elitist and more than a bit arrogant. But the irony is that, were you completely compliant with their wishes, you would have no vote at all as a female, and that was because it was believed at the time that females were “ignorant and gullible” and required men to do their thinking for them, since they “didn’t know that much and didn’t care that much”; they were supposed to concentrate on only the issues they knew, and leave everything else to the men. Same for any of you who are of color, don’t own your own land, and whatnot.
The reason those changes were made is because of the processes you detest — direct voter action and amendments to the Constitution — as being the actions of an “ignorant mob”.
Representative democracy has two drawbacks; it concentrates the power of many voters in one individual, and it creates a sort of inertia over topics, i.e. people may disagree with their representative on one issue, but not on several others. This enables two things; people may purchase and nullify the net effect of thousands of votes by simply going to the representative, and the representative may ignore the will of the people in several respects simply because they like him or her in others.
The referendum and constitutional amendment process prevents the abuse of both. It eliminates the effect of gerrymandered districts, thus allowing people who are disenfranchised by boundaries to express themselves with the same weight as those who aren’t, and it enables voters to register their opinion on a single issue, rather than the all-or-nothing that a representative election creates.
The real problem here is that voters won’t support gays and lesbians — mainly because they are aware of the fact that gays and lesbians consider voters “ignorant and gullible” and that gays and lesbians consider people with religious beliefs, as I cited here, to have “mental sickness”, to be “facist” (sic), and to have holy books that are “evil” and encourage “murders, genocide, and all manner of injustice” — and that it is normal and “common” among gays and lesbians to have sex with underage children, or for gay children to have lovers who are twice as old as they are.
So in answer to your question, Richard, the way the state proposition will be changed is by a statewide vote repealing it. And that will require that the gay and lesbian community make it clear that all of the things I just mentioned are not intrinsic to gay people, but are a result of people using their sexual orientation to validate antisocial behaviors — and that gay people will no longer tolerate other gay people doing that.
posted by Karen on
You are still making the mistake (on purpose, of course) of applying the characteristics I described of a MOB – ignorant and gullible – to the individuals that make it up. Individuals are not the context in which my words, “ignorant and gullible”, were spoken.
I disagree with your assessment of the founders’ “3 reasons” for implementing a representative government. I agree that there are some problems with the execution, and even some problems inherent in the design. I disagree that direct democracy is the answer. I disagree that your handful of favorite “gays are bad” anecdotes mean anything at all.
But I will not continue discussing this with you, since you insist upon taking my words out of context and insisting that they mean something that they do not mean.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You are still making the mistake (on purpose, of course) of applying the characteristics I described of a MOB – ignorant and gullible – to the individuals that make it up.
Then, by your logic, our Founders were justified in denying women, non-whites, and non-landowners the right to vote, since they were nothing more than an “ignorant and gullible mob” who couldn’t be trusted to make intelligent decisions.
I disagree that direct democracy is the answer.
Good, because I’m not advocating wholesale replacement of representative with direct. I am advocating that direct democracy be allowed when voters demand it.
I disagree that your handful of favorite “gays are bad” anecdotes mean anything at all.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You are still making the mistake (on purpose, of course) of applying the characteristics I described of a MOB – ignorant and gullible – to the individuals that make it up.
Then, by your logic, our Founders were justified in denying women, non-whites, and non-landowners the right to vote, since they were nothing more than an “ignorant and gullible mob” who couldn’t be trusted to make intelligent decisions.
I disagree that direct democracy is the answer.
Good, because I’m not advocating wholesale replacement of representative with direct. I am advocating that direct democracy be allowed when voters demand it.
I disagree that your handful of favorite “gays are bad” anecdotes mean anything at all..
Which is why, I suppose, that you are so terrified of allowing the voters who see and are aware of these things to vote on gay and lesbian issues.
The simple fact of life is that direct democracy is the overpowering way of life in our system. And one of these days, gays ane lesbians will realize that the need to justify unrelated leftist and antireligious beliefs on the basis of sexual orientation is why even states like Michigan and Oregon have state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.
Let’s hope it comes soon.
posted by Karen on
“that the need to justify unrelated leftist and antireligious beliefs on the basis of sexual orientation is why even states like Michigan and Oregon have state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.”
I suppose the STATED reasons that people support these amendments – you know, protecting children and the traditional family and that stuff – have nothing to do with it.
Yeah, probably not.
“Then, by your logic, our Founders were justified in denying women, non-whites, and non-landowners the right to vote, since they were nothing more than an “ignorant and gullible mob” who couldn’t be trusted to make intelligent decisions.”
Um… no. See, because they now get to take part in REPRESENTATIVE democracy, which is intended to diffuse the effects of the ignorant and gullible mob, whether it is composed of all white men landowners, or of universal suffrage.
The justification for representative democracy is not the same as the justification for male-only suffrage. One has to do with the behavior of groups when decision making. The other has to do with the perceived behavior of *individuals* when decision making. This logic thing – be more careful with it, it can hurt you.
“I am advocating that direct democracy be allowed when voters demand it.”
Possibly, but I think it should be a lot harder to “demand” it because when it is easily available, it ends up like in California – with clauses in the wrong place gumming up the works – or like in Florida, with smoking bans and the size of the pens allowable for pregnant pigs enshrined in the Constitution. Welcome to the tyranny of the majority.
I just think this three-part system of checks and balances was actually quite a clever idea and useful for avoiding all sorts of tyranny – so I prefer to not short-circuit it with a “direct democracy uber alles” trump card.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I suppose the STATED reasons that people support these amendments – you know, protecting children and the traditional family and that stuff – have nothing to do with it.
Well, given the number of gays and lesbians who believe taking children to sex fairs is “educational”, believe that having sex with underage children when you’re twice their age is normal, and that normal two-person marriage is repressive and discriminatory and should be replaced, doing so would indeed protect children and traditional families.
And this was funny.
The justification for representative democracy is not the same as the justification for male-only suffrage. One has to do with the behavior of groups when decision making. The other has to do with the perceived behavior of *individuals* when decision making.
Mhm, as if your statement that people are “ignorant and gullible” wasn’t a matter of “perceived behavior” itself.
The problem here, Karen, is that prejudiced and elitist lesbigays simply can’t understand why people who they treat with contempt, whose religious beliefs they denigrate, and whose values they spit upon don’t vote in their favor – so they invent this lovely fantasy about how voters are all “ignorant and gullible” so that they can rationalize trying to disenfranchise said voters.
posted by Karen on
Aaaaand…. here are ND30’s three favorite stories.
Again.
Laaaaaaaaame.