Gay Marriage should not be decided by popular referendum. Our government is deliberately set up as a democratic republic, and not a pure democracy, to avoid the dangers and risks that are posed by leaving all decisions to a popular vote that are commonly described as "mob rule". Popular referendums to ban gay marriage are built upon two of the major flaws in pure democracy: that the majority will use their votes to cause unjustified harms to minority rights and that the public will be swayed to vote upon issues that they do not appreciate.
The public is unfortunately inclined to vote to cause an unecessary harm to minorities that lack the political clout to protect their rights. Thus, the legislature needs to use its authority to create sound policy that does not simply harm minorities. While it is true that legislators are elected democratically, it is also true that they are elected for both their ability to make sound decisions and for their policy positions. The public will want to elect legislators who are fair, so that they will not the run the risk of their own group being abused, but might not make such a connection when voting in referendums.
Legislators spend great amounts of time studying policy issues and listening to the opinions of experts. The public, however, often forms their opinions without understanding the issue completely. To make a sound decision about gay marriage, one should understand the legal, historical, and cultural dimensions of both homosexuality and the definition of marriage. I doubt that the average person voting in a referendum has done that.
So far, it seems like turning gay marriage over to referendums is a solid opposition strategy - but I don't want minorities to lose their rights to a majority that is self interested and does not fully appreciate the issues, and if it does happen then I think it will be kind of sad.
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
you forget one thing. even a representative democracy's representatives have to answer to their constituents, which is the people. If the people vote something down, then their representatives go over their head and make it law anyway, they won't be representing their people for long.
and we all know how much politicians like their positions of power.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
Korriken has a point, and I think that's the biggest reason you see politicians being more then happy to leave things like gay marriage to the popular vote, because then they cannot be blamed for the outcome. But if they vote for it, then supporters and opponents can simply look at the voting records, see who voted which way, and cast their ballots when that politician is up for election accordingly.
I agree though that something like this is an issue that needs some sort of equal rights referendum similar to Civil Rights put through for the sake of equality and making this country as free and fair as it's supposed to be. But like Korriken said, I just can't see politicians with the guts enough to risk their elected office to make that happen.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
At 11/26/09 06:14 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: But like Korriken said, I just can't see politicians with the guts enough to risk their elected office to make that happen.
there are some out there, but not enough to bring about change. we'll see illegal immigrant amnesty before we see gay marriage.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 11/26/09 06:30 PM, Korriken wrote: there are some out there, but not enough to bring about change. we'll see illegal immigrant amnesty before we see gay marriage.
And it'll be for the same reason you mentioned before: Votes. The latino population tends to turn out in good numbers and are very much of the mindset it seems that amnesty should be granted.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
At 11/26/09 07:04 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
And it'll be for the same reason you mentioned before: Votes. The latino population tends to turn out in good numbers and are very much of the mindset it seems that amnesty should be granted.
pretty much. both parties want the latino vote. it'll just be a matter of which party decides it would be in their best interest to pass the bill. I'm amazed the democrats haven't tried to pass it, since they have a majority in both houses and in the white house.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 11/26/09 07:17 PM, Korriken wrote: pretty much. both parties want the latino vote. it'll just be a matter of which party decides it would be in their best interest to pass the bill. I'm amazed the democrats haven't tried to pass it, since they have a majority in both houses and in the white house.
I think already having the battle with health care has them tied up enough. I doubt they want a two front war in trying to push immigrant amnesty and their healthcare schemes at the same time. They'd run the risk of one or both of them ending in total failure and the last thing they need as an image when mid-term elections come up is to be seen as the party that has a gigantic majority and can still get nothing pushed through.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
we should abolish state-recognised marriages completely :O :O
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 11/26/09 07:17 PM, Korriken wrote: pretty much. both parties want the latino vote. it'll just be a matter of which party decides it would be in their best interest to pass the bill. I'm amazed the democrats haven't tried to pass it, since they have a majority in both houses and in the white house.
On the Latino vote--
Latinos are conservative people, but they can't share the Republican/Ayn Rand ideological mindset. Latinos (I'm talking about Mexican immigrants) are poor people.
Just look at the churches that influenced both cultures... Catholicism in Mexico, and Protestantism in the US. In Mexico, Jesus is poor, hardworking, shares things, works with the poor by being part of them. In the US, Jesus is godly, helps the poor, but he's a leader instead of a member. And God shows favor to those who seem to be fortunate (instead of poor.)
This is the major influence, I see, how Latinos vote... and why you will see them vote against gay marriage (against democrates), but vote for health care reform (against republicans).
Politicians are incentivized to go with majority rule. The actual purpose behind making certain branches of government independent of popular vote was to have a protection against majoritarian rule.
The main reason the framers only had popular elections for congressmen was because they felt that the only control the people needed was control over the tax purse.
_____________
True protection from majoritarian rule occurs best in a free market.
It isn't merely profitable to produce objects that are demanded by only 51% of the population.
Likewise, if I had to hire a 'Government' to protect my rights. Would I be willing to pay extra money to see to it that people in my neighborhood were thrown in jail for smoking pot? of course not. I would want my person and my property protected. (And family if i wasn't living alone) And that would be it.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 11/27/09 11:24 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Likewise, if I had to hire a 'Government' to protect my rights.
You've already hired a government. You might know it as the U.S. government.
At 11/27/09 02:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: we should abolish state-recognised marriages completely :O :O
But since that will NEVER happen...may as well open up the benefits (and headaches) to everybody.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
At 11/27/09 05:36 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:At 11/27/09 02:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: we should abolish state-recognised marriages completely :O :OBut since that will NEVER happen...may as well open up the benefits (and headaches) to everybody.
A girl can dream...
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
At 11/27/09 11:48 AM, Elfer wrote:At 11/27/09 11:24 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Likewise, if I had to hire a 'Government' to protect my rights.You've already hired a government. You might know it as the U.S. government.
I never hired the US government. I never signed any document stating that the people who call themselfs 'the united states of america' would provide my protection, law, utilities, etc.
And don't tell me about the social contract, it's a sad excuse for the love-it-or-leave-it-argument.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
we need a non-religious president or one that is for gay marriage. The probelm is any strong religious people are against it and there is alot of them
The US political system is set up to counter balance the negatives of a representative democracy. In a representive democracy you still have the vulnerability of mob rule, as people have pointed out, if the representatives do not do what the people want they wont be around very long. This is where the senate comes into play, since they represent a much large constituency they are less prone to influence by popularity.
the Senates original purpose was to counter balance the House, prevent the Representatives who were mostly from low to middle class from hijacking the country from the upper class who made up the senate.
Bellum omnium contra omnes
At 11/27/09 08:02 PM, darkrchaos wrote: we need a non-religious president or one that is for gay marriage. The probelm is any strong religious people are against it and there is alot of them
I really don't see that coming to pass. First of all, homophobia is not exclusivly faith based. Secondly, a large amount of the voting public (i.e people who bother to vote) are at least somewhat religious and wouldn't feel represented by a president who wasen't.
I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's
Personally, I believe homosexuals have every right to be married. I don't want to be denied any reasonable right, I do not think they should be either.
I say reasonable right because I dont think I should have the right to murder my neighbor because I don't like him.
Want to play League of Legends?
The most epic thread on the forums.
If you say you've seen it all, you're about to see something new.....Probably.
At 11/27/09 05:36 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:At 11/27/09 02:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: we should abolish state-recognised marriages completely :O :OBut since that will NEVER happen...may as well open up the benefits (and headaches) to everybody.
well obviously
I say say we should abolish marriage because it's ridiculous that people should be granted extra rights of ebing part of a group (in this case, being a married couple)
And yeah, as long as this is going to happen, it's also ridiculous that you're only entitled to these extra rights if you're attracted to people of the opposite sex
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 11/28/09 01:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 11/27/09 05:36 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:well obviouslyAt 11/27/09 02:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: we should abolish state-recognised marriages completely :O :OBut since that will NEVER happen...may as well open up the benefits (and headaches) to everybody.
I say say we should abolish marriage because it's ridiculous that people should be granted extra rights of ebing part of a group (in this case, being a married couple)
And yeah, as long as this is going to happen, it's also ridiculous that you're only entitled to these extra rights if you're attracted to people of the opposite sex
Look at what Texas did to marriage. If it is brought to the courts. I would love front row seats to see the arguments made.
Of course, intent would play a role, and shatter my dreams of something fun.
At 11/27/09 08:41 PM, JoS wrote: The US political system is set up to counter balance the negatives of a representative democracy. In a representive democracy you still have the vulnerability of mob rule, as people have pointed out, if the representatives do not do what the people want they wont be around very long. This is where the senate comes into play, since they represent a much large constituency they are less prone to influence by popularity.
the Senates original purpose was to counter balance the House, prevent the Representatives who were mostly from low to middle class from hijacking the country from the upper class who made up the senate.
This is an astute point that I hadn't thought of. If I recall correctly, senators were originally appointed by governors, making it a virtual guarantee that they represent the upper classes.
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
At 11/28/09 08:21 AM, wrathofmannix wrote: Look at what Texas did to marriage. If it is brought to the courts. I would love front row seats to see the arguments made.
I just read that today and was going to say I had to kind of apologize to Sadistic since I inadvertently lied to him. Granted it was an accident, but I think it does make a great point as to the harm all this homophobia can be doing to the law and the amount of money that then gets wasted having to fix it.
This is the article I saw for the curious who aren't sure what is being talked about here: http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1 770189.html
Of course, intent would play a role, and shatter my dreams of something fun.
I think you have to go by what the law says, and how hard is it for them if they really want to ban this stuff to go back and just be more explicit in "homosexuals can't get anything that looks in any way like marriage in this state". I mean, we're already enacting a prejudice freaking law here, why don't we just go all out and be super clear in our prejudice? Maybe we could even throw in all the slurs for homosexuals as well just to make sure there's no confusion whatsoever.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
I really don't see that coming to pass. First of all, homophobia is not exclusivly faith based. Secondly, a large amount of the voting public (i.e people who bother to vote) are at least somewhat religious and wouldn't feel represented by a president who wasen't.
haha True, I didn't say it would ever happen
At 11/28/09 03:51 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:At 11/28/09 08:21 AM, wrathofmannix wrote: Of course, intent would play a role, and shatter my dreams of something fun.I think you have to go by what the law says, and how hard is it for them if they really want to ban this stuff to go back and just be more explicit in "homosexuals can't get anything that looks in any way like marriage in this state". I mean, we're already enacting a prejudice freaking law here, why don't we just go all out and be super clear in our prejudice? Maybe we could even throw in all the slurs for homosexuals as well just to make sure there's no confusion whatsoever.
Well, you are talking about Texas, home of a lot of religious people, especially in the rural areas. (Coincidentally, I live in a small town in Texas)
But back on topic, if any lawsuit came up, and I'm not sure about any pending lawsuits, I can see the backers of this amendment argue intent about section B. For a reference, this is the amendment.
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
They would use the phrase "identical and similar to marriage" and argue its intention. At least, that's what I see anyways.
It's funny, a minister warned about it. I wonder why they didn't listen?
But back on topic, if any lawsuit came up, and I'm not sure about any pending lawsuits, I can see the backers of this amendment argue intent about section B.
I'd be curious to see how you argue for the intent of a bill.
On the issue of referendum, I don't think that there should really be one. The main point of a referendum is to absolve the few of the obligation to make a far reaching decision and place it into the hands of the population who would have to live with it.
To hold a referendum would imply that the lives of everyday Americans would face significant change in light of the "legalization" of Gay marriage, when simply this is can not be so.
At 11/29/09 12:01 AM, ScytheCutter wrote:I'd be curious to see how you argue for the intent of a bill.
But back on topic, if any lawsuit came up, and I'm not sure about any pending lawsuits, I can see the backers of this amendment argue intent about section B.
Time to play devil's advocate.
Let's look at the phrase "any legal status identical or similar to marriage." This is the line that is being argued that outlaws marriage. I would probably argue that the intention of this line was for any civil union or similar status, but not marriage itself, because the issue is about what is similar or identical to marriage. Since marriage is the standard being used to identify the legal status not recognized, it cannot be held as being not recognized.
Of course, this may be moot because the amendment itself is being called into question.
I personally object to gay marriage. However, I really don't care whether or not its legalized, so long as the issue continues to be handled at the state government / referendum level. That's where these decisions should be made. If the feds try to make it a federal issue, however, I don't care if their pushing for or against it, I'd be against them on the principle of state's rights alone.
Oh dear me, it appears there's already a topic about the texas issue so I'd kindly ask that we move all discussion of that particular point over there.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
Gay Marriage Voted Down in New York
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/i dUSTRE5B157K20091202
I think im gonna be sick....
NAHM NAHM NAHM
This sort of thing shouldn't be decided by referendum because it's got nothing to do with majority opinion.
Marriage is not a Christian institution and it's up to the individual to decide who he/she wants to marry.
I'll bet the people who support this sort of referendum spend the rest of their time complaining about "big government."
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
