A place to meet your neighbors & exchange ideas
Legal system, same sex marriages
- Rating:
3.8 after 3 votes
I want to talk about the legal system not gay marriage.
We had this on the ballot and the majority spoken, right or wrong.
Now the courts are going to come in and rule on this. In an effort to protect the minorities.
Is this right? It does make sense to protect, but should it out weight the peoples choice?
We had this on the ballot and the majority spoken, right or wrong.
Now the courts are going to come in and rule on this. In an effort to protect the minorities.
Is this right? It does make sense to protect, but should it out weight the peoples choice?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dotti on -
"We had this on the ballot and the majority spoken, ..." Actually, I believe this issue has been voted on TWICE ... both with the same results ...
-
Permalink Reply by Dorothy on -
There will always be opponents to a cause. There is an old adage that goes: "Majority rules". We speak by our vote on what we want and majority should rule. If not, can the courts jump in and challenge our vote for president because the loosers don't like the results?
-
Permalink Reply by Ed on -
Trent please explain your self a little more, i think i know what you are saying, just not sure.
-
Permalink Reply by Ed on
-
Does majority rule? I see cases where God is being taken out of area's where the majority doesn't want it taken out of. Minorities have been hurt for years till it became evident in societies eyes it was wrong. Look at the right to vote for women.
-
Permalink Reply by SLO Swimmer on -
The term "majority rule" is so misunderstood by people. The way it is commonly interpreted as "who ever gets the most votes is right", it could also be equally applied as the term "mob logic."
Just because a majority of people hold a particular view, doesn't mean it is the right one or that it is even legally applicable. This is why our Constitution was written to express the will of the majority, yet at the same time to protect the rights of the minority. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
The issue is when a state passes a law that says some citizens can get married and some can't, that can logically be argued as a state attempting to pass a law that abridges privileges of some citizens.
-
Permalink Reply by Alex on -
There is no reason that two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry. Nobody is forcing you to accept gay people, or be gay, or teach your children anything. It doesn't affect you. It only affects couples across the state that love each other and are entitled to all the rights of everyone else.
Pets are not a good analogy. They cannot speak and are animals - cannot make decisions for themselves. These are humans we're talking about here.
The dictionary is an arbitrary collection of terms. It's important to note that Webster, however, indeed does allow that same sex marriage is, in fact, marriage.
Loving v. Virginia in lifted the ban on interracial marriage in 1967. Again, two legal, consenting adults could not marry, and the supreme court determined it to be unconstitutional. Prior to this, interestingly enough, religious dogmatism made an appearance by the state court judge, Leon Bazile: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." I think today we all probably agree that a ban on interracial marriage is/was abhorrent.
I am hopeful that same sex marriage is close on its heels....
-
Permalink Reply by Alex on
-
Here's an analogy for you.
50-60 years ago, black people had to use different restrooms, fountains, etc. The majority of the population at that time apparently felt that was legal and acceptable. Was it?
Prior to this - women were not allowed to vote. Do you feel that's legal and acceptable?
-
Permalink Reply by Ed on
-
I agree w/ you Alex it was wrong. Being a some what radical at that time and now. How do you challenge people to think and expand their minds. It was very acceptable to discriminate back then and some what now. Some tactics are extreme other not effective. Most radicals are offencive unless you agree w/ them.
Do you expect change w/ a simple, please!
-
Permalink Reply by Alex on
-
I'd like to add that one of my favorite quotes applies well here.
"Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner."
Welcome to
Central Coast Today
© 2010 Created by Eggbox Media, LLC DBA Central Coast Today
