Obama endorses same-sex marriage (Page 18)

Sure, I can agree, but then that is a statement to an individuals rights... the right not to be beaten... not a a value statemen,t or even say a "nanny" statement... we are going to take better care of you than your parents because we want to see you grow up and prosper and have kids.

The answer is because there is more to it than just the religious right or backwards knuckle draggers. That is what I was trying to say earlier... some folks it just does not sit right. And not because of "God". Some people just don't get it and don't think it's right. 

Even interracial marriage... it is still man and woman. Perhaps not many people wanted to go and and get into a interracial marriage, but they could at least grasp man and woman.

I'm just guessing here cause I again will say that is not how I think. But it is a valid question. And even when Prop * went down in California... I was shocked... I mean California couldn't even pass it! There is a lot more to it than the stereotypes that get all the media buzz.

A point to consider is that it's not really the same as protection under regular individual rights.
Children are not emancipated adults. 

So then it's a question of where the line is.
People of good will can find it here or maybe there.

I do agree with you though about the dangers of statism regarding raising children.
Parents are the primary nurturers and educators of their children.
It's the states responsibility to protect those parental rights.
So in away, the "nanny state" problem is one that the state itself has a duty to get rid of. 

OK....so if it can't pass by a vote of our society....then it's not time, right?  Do our votes not mean anything? (for the record, I have voted for it)

We live in a society where the people get to vote for or against change.....the PEOPLE have said no to this time and again.  So it's no.  Our society has decided that a marriage is between a man and a woman.  

By that reasoning the majority could deny the rights of any minority they so choose; civil rights, women's suffrage, etc.

Well....sure....but in this country the majority DOES rule.  That's how it works.  That's how it's always worked.  The majority has not seen fit to deny women the right to vote, or to deny civil rights.  But they have seen fit to deny same sex marriage......and so it is.  

Again, I don't agree, but I agree with the process.

That is why we have a federal court system culminating in the supreme court, to keep majorit rule from stripping or denying the minority their rights. Yes we are a democracy but majoriy rule is not and should not be without its limits. Yes the majority has denied women the right to vote and it has denied equal treatment under the law to minority class citizens in the past and were basically forced to change. Kudos to Rosa Parks and all those who have stood up to majority rule and demanded the equal protections under the law that are supposed to be their rights in this, a free country.

I don't think courts should overrule popular vote.  If we're going there, then do away with vote.  I find it ironic that you would bring up women's suffrage but in the same breath think it's ok for a court to overrule popular vote.  

Just so we don't get lost....I will say it again (because I know how these threads go)....I am FOR same sex marriage.  I am also for popular vote....and on this issue, the people have clearly spoken.

If courts couldn't overrule "popular vote," you wouldn't have interracial marriage, women's suffrage, basic civil rights, etc.  There is something called "tyranny of the majority."  The majority is not always interested in the rights of minorities.  Checks and balances are good things.  

It's only a good thing if it happens on the side you agree with.  Popular vote is an important part of our society.  Courts can be manipulated...it's hard to manipulate a majority vote....I think we've lost that in our society.  

Let's have a vote today about women's suffrage or basic civil rights and look where it is.....I have absolute faith that our society would get it right.  

That being said, we may have it wrong regarding same sex marriage (I hope we do).....but having it forced on us despite what our society wants at this time is not right.  Let's not lose sight of the fact that it has NEVER prevailed.

NO, the minority does not always get it's way regardless of what society thinks (votes).

Well at least for my part I do know wher you stand on the issue so no misunderrstanding on that score. Beyond that I agree with CD. Yes it happens on occasion. majority rule is one of the Big logical fallacies. The majority is not always right including when women vote. As with everything else in life there needs to be a balance, and that balance needs to be protected.

I'm OK with balance needing to be protected....I'm NOT ok with the people protecting it....they are appointed with expectations on how they will rule.....I trust the majority more.

Tell you what, it is past my beddy bye time and I need some serious beauty sleep so I will let CD take it from here or we can continue tomorrow. Have a good night.

ChineseDemocracy - If courts couldn't overrule "popular vote," you wouldn't have interracial marriage, women's suffrage, basic civil rights, etc.  There is something called "tyranny of the majority."  The majority is not always interested in the rights of minorities.  Checks and balances are good things.  

As far as women's suffrage went, the courts didn't overrule popular vote.

It required a constitutional amendment, the 19th amendment. 
Before that, it was constitutional to limit the vote to men.

Not on a long enough timeline.  That's *exactly* what politicians do via gerrymandering, immigration policy, and so on.

dontracy - 2012-05-14 4:06 AM

ChineseDemocracy - If courts couldn't overrule "popular vote," you wouldn't have interracial marriage, women's suffrage, basic civil rights, etc.  There is something called "tyranny of the majority."  The majority is not always interested in the rights of minorities.  Checks and balances are good things.  

As far as women's suffrage went, the courts didn't overrule popular vote.

It required a constitutional amendment, the 19th amendment. 
Before that, it was constitutional to limit the vote to men.

15th amendment also, for racial equality in voting.

Note I'm not saying this was the sole event that brought around the civil rights movement.  Far from it.

dontracy - 2012-05-14 6:06 AM

ChineseDemocracy - If courts couldn't overrule "popular vote," you wouldn't have interracial marriage, women's suffrage, basic civil rights, etc.  There is something called "tyranny of the majority."  The majority is not always interested in the rights of minorities.  Checks and balances are good things.  

As far as women's suffrage went, the courts didn't overrule popular vote.

It required a constitutional amendment, the 19th amendment. 
Before that, it was constitutional to limit the vote to men.

True, the courts didn't overrule popular vote, but Congress did.  In 1911, Wisconsin voted down women's suffrage by a margin of 63 - 37%.  In 1912, Ohio voters rejected a constitutional amendment granting suffrage by a margin of  57 - 43%.  In all, about a dozen states had rejected women's suffrage via popular votes prior to 1919.  I don't think it makes a difference if it was the SCOTUS or US Congress enforcing the change, the fact is prior to the 19th Amendment, women's suffrage had always been regarded as a state's rights issue, with some states flat out rejecting it.  Then the "feds" stepped in and overruled state law as decided by majority rules popular votes.  A New York senator who voted against the 19th Amendment stated "Now the question is whether the people of these States are competent to settle the question for themselves. There is no tremendous emergency facing the country, no revolution or rebellion threatened, which would seem to make it necessary to impose on the people of these States a thing they have said as free citizens they do not require or desire. Is it contrary to the spirit of American institutions that they shall be left free to decide these things for themselves?"

While in general I'm a big supporter of state's rights in general, when it comes to discrimination sometime states get it wrong.  And that's where the checks and balances provided in our Constitution, including the court system and congress, are needed.  To quote John Adams, "That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world."

So today Obama said he wanted to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act "in his second term".

Oh please.... gonna shut down Gitmo, get out of Afghanistan and fix the economy in your second term too hunh?  Does anyone really believe the BS he puts out there anymore?

http://gawker.com/5910277/obama-announces-plans-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act