Gay Marriage

[Philly]

Which are... because it should be. No one has yet answered my allegation that someone else's relationship can in no way harm your marriage.

I'm coming very quickly to think that your question will not be answered. It seems that another, gay marriage won't affect yours.

 

[Zrow]

I think their reasoning is that it somehow cheapens their traditional marriage.

So... I'm gonna agree that no, it won't affect your marriage.

 

[a6m5]

Check my signature. The majority shouldn't be needed to vote on whether or not the government should treat citizens equally under the law. It's already written in our constitution.

Danoff, I know you've been busy, but you missed my point completely.

What I said was that gay marriage is trying to change marriage into something it's not. Ban on gay marriage isn't same as a discrimination on blacks, which really cheapens what African Americans had gone though IMO(kinda like people comparing every meanies to Hitler). Straight or gay, a guy can't marry another guy, because that's not what marriage is. Again, the key here is, should husband-husband, or wife-wife combination be counted as marriage? Is it unreasonable to limit marriage between a man and a woman?

And this is where my statement of "I won't stand in the way..." came in. Gay marriage will add a new twist to marriage. If people are OK to add this change to marriage, I can go along with that. But it most certainly shouldn't be decided by the minority, when they are asking to change marriage into something that it was never meant to be.

Edit:

Which are... because it should be. No one has yet answered my allegation that someone else's relationship can in no way harm your marriage.

No. At least not directly IMO. But like I said in my posts, this is not about harming or discriminating. IMO, gay marriage is an attempt to add a new twist to marriage.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, I know you've been busy, but you missed my point completely.

What I said was that gay marriage is trying to change marriage into something it's not. Ban on gay marriage isn't same as a discrimination on blacks, which really cheapens what African Americans had gone though IMO(kinda like people comparing every meanies to Hitler). Straight or gay, a guy can't marry another guy, because that's not what marriage is. Again, the key here is, should husband-husband, or wife-wife combination be counted as marriage? Is it unreasonable to limit marriage between a man and a woman?

I keep hearing this "marriage is defined as" business over and over - but that doesn't really change anything I'm saying. What it is currently defined as is discriminatory. That's unconstitutional and against the spirit of American government.

 

[FoolKiller]

Is it just me or are all the age restricted laws discrimitary. After all somebody decided on my behalf what age I could; drive, drink, have sex, get married and leave school.

Let me explain why for you:

Driving: This protects the safety of other people.
Drink: This protects the safety of the minor, and in some cases other people.
Have Sex: Protects the safety of the minor.
Get Married: Protects the safety of the minor.
Leave School: I say let the parents make that decision. Of course, I have many issues with our education system.

As Danoff said, there are legitimate reasons for some forms of age discrimination. In most of those cases we are protecting someone who cannot make proper decisions from themselves and others until they are able to make those decisions.

Now, compare that to a gay marriage; who is being protected by limiting it (or its terms)?

Another example. In the UK if you rent a property from a private landlord and you lose your job and can no longer afford to pay your rent you can apply to get housing benefit to help you. I have a mortgage on my house. If I lost my job I cannot apply for housing benefit to help me pay my mortgage. Am I being discriminated against indirectly because I have a mortgage. I think so.

Yes, you are. Does that make it right to discriminate against others? No.

 

[Mark T]

Let me explain why for you:

Driving: This protects the safety of other people.
Drink: This protects the safety of the minor, and in some cases other people.
Have Sex: Protects the safety of the minor.
Get Married: Protects the safety of the minor.
Leave School: I say let the parents make that decision. Of course, I have many issues with our education system.

As Danoff said, there are legitimate reasons for some forms of age discrimination. In most of those cases we are protecting someone who cannot make proper decisions from themselves and others until they are able to make those decisions.

Now, compare that to a gay marriage; who is being protected by limiting it (or its terms)?


Yes, you are. Does that make it right to discriminate against others? No.

So as long as you have a legitimate reason, you can discriminate?

 

[FoolKiller]

So as long as you have a legitimate reason, you can discriminate?

When you are protecting the rights of others, yes. That is the only time. It is the same reason mentally unstable people are kept in special hospitals. We discriminate against them for their mental instability because it is a danger to themselves and others. A minor does not yet have the mental ability to operate a vehicle and properly weigh life-altering decisions and can become a danger to themselves and others around them.

Really, which is better:

1) Discriminating by age and making age limits for when people can do things and become independent of their parents.
2) Full legal status from birth and an independent child working in a factory and then going home to have some beer.

Child labor and sweat shops are considered immoral, but if you didn't have these age discrimination limits then it would become a necessity for the child.

Age limits for minors protects them and others.

Again, by allowing homosexuals to marry and legally call it a marriage who is being harmed?

 

[Duke]

So as long as you have a legitimate reason, you can discriminate?

Do you seriously not understand the concept of "age of informed consent", or are you just trying to force the point? Because the latter is not working and it's getting tiresome for everybody to explain basic stuff to you, especially if you actually understand it.

Again, by allowing homosexuals to marry and legally call it a marriage who is being harmed?

Apparently, people with delicate marriages.

I mean, really. Say I buy a house and make it my home. If a gay couple buys a house (even if they're not married) and make it their home, does that remove some of the comfort I get sitting in front of my fireplace on a snowy night? Does that make it less of a place filled with the laughter and necessities and junk and toys of life? Does that weaken my concept of "home"?

Of course not. This whole "sanctity of marriage" thing is nothing but a front for homophobia and an attempt to deny the existence of homosexuality.

 

[Mark T]

Do you seriously not understand the concept of "age of informed consent", or are you just trying to force the point? Because the latter is not working and it's getting tiresome for everybody to explain basic stuff to you, especially if you actually understand it.

Apparently, people with delicate marriages.

I mean, really. Say I buy a house and make it my home. If a gay couple buys a house (even if they're not married) and make it their home, does that remove some of the comfort I get sitting in front of my fireplace on a snowy night? Does that make it less of a place filled with the laughter and necessities and junk and toys of life? Does that weaken my concept of "home"?

Of course not. This whole "sanctity of marriage" thing is nothing but a front for homophobia and an attempt to deny the existence of homosexuality.

It's not because I'm homophobic. As I said before, if gay marriage is legalised I wouldn't really mind. I like the tradition of marriage being between a hetrosexual couple. That's it. I prefer it that way. If homosexual couples wanted civil unions just for homosexual couples I think that would be ok. I certainly wouldn't claim that I'm being discriminated against because I'm hetrosexual.

 

[Swift]

For the question of why marriage is the way it is. It just is. Is it my fault that the government for some reason decided to put legal implications on said institution? I'll say it again, this is about TITLES not rights.

Danoff agreed to this:

I understand where Famine, Duke and Danoff are coming from. They have a very strong case. The problem is that our government has given marriage legal implications. If it wasn't for that, this discussion would not be happening.

My next sentence was this is about titles. Danoff didn't quote that part so I'm assuming he doesn't agree. But that's what it is. The government took the title and institution of marriage and gave it all kinds of implications. Now, since the government did something that it shouldn't have done, my marriage will be the same as two guys.

My problem with this, among other things, is that you're telling me now all of a sudden that my parents marriage is the same as two men or two women. Well, it's really really not. Some of you keep asking will it cheapen my marriage? Will it make you any less committed to your spouse. Well, obviously not. But that doesn't mean that what they have is the SAME as a heterosexual couple.

 

[Duke]

For the question of why marriage is the way it is. It just is. Is it my fault that the government for some reason decided to put legal implications on said institution? I'll say it again, this is about TITLES not rights.

We've clearly indicated numerous other times when things JUST WERE and nobody had a problem with correcting the government when it was wrong. So why is this one highly particular issue suddenly sacrosanct?

The government took the title and institution of marriage and gave it all kinds of implications. Now, since the government did something that it shouldn't have done, my marriage will be the same as two guys.

So, if the government had never defined marriage as "man and woman", you wouldn't have a problem with gays being "married"? Other than your obvious dislike of homosexuality in general, which is a somewhat separate issue.

Forgive me for finding that hard to believe.

My problem with this, among other things, is that you're telling me now all of a sudden that my parents marriage is the same as two men or two women. Well, it's really really not. Some of you keep asking will it cheapen my marriage? Will it make you any less committed to your spouse. Well, obviously not. But that doesn't mean that what they have is the SAME as a heterosexual couple.

Well, duh, of course it's not the same as your parents' marriage. Is your marriage the same as your parents' marriage? No. Is mine? No. Is mine the same as Danoff's? No.

So what?

None of you will admit it (maybe not even to yourselves), but frankly, I suspect that you all think homosexuals are not capable of forming stable, loving, committed monogamous relationships. I think deep down you secretly feel that all gays are nothing but promiscuous sluts who want to co-opt respectability by claiming the title of "marriage".

 

[UnoMOTO]

I am not personally taking anything away from anyone with my one vote.
People that don't think blacks should be able to vote have an opinion of how they think the country should be. That's their right. But it does make them a bad person in my eyes, and they are wrong. Right?

Unfortunatly they have the individual right to vote anyway they see fit. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong. Thats the way our country is and how it should stay.

You are personally taking away the right for two consenting adults to marry with your vote.

They don't offically have that right to begin with because its not in the constitution or the bill of rights. I can't take away something you never had in the first place.

It's easy to accept the majority rule when it swings in your favor. Try to see it from the other side of the fence.

You say that like everything I voted for passed last november. I was nearly 50/50 on ballot items. Sorry DUDE but I get to play both sides of the fence.

Majority rule is not necessarily moral rule. If you government is just, it must not simply carry out the will of the majority, it must adhere to a concept of justice that exist externally. Our government is set up in this way, which is why our constitution currently says that you cannot vote to "kill all redhaired Americans" or some such unjust act.

Quite simply put, no matter how many people you get with you to vote for something, you do not have a right to deprive a minority of voters of their rights. This is a key point that all American voters need to understand. It is possible to vote for something that is unjust, if a majority votes for it that does not somehow make it just.

Ok...You keep repeating yourself and now its time to pony up. Give me an example how how to implement your idea of the minority gaining control of there own lives. To what extent do you want self government. How do you propose if a group of ten people want to make getting married to dogs legal. Pick any idea you want...even gay marriage if you like. Tell us how it is actually GOING to happen of only 10% of the population wants it to become a law. Give us the Danoff solution to the problem with minority rights.

 

[a6m5]

I keep hearing this "marriage is defined as" business over and over - but that doesn't really change anything I'm saying. What it is currently defined as is discriminatory. That's unconstitutional and against the spirit of American government.

Well, while I can respect your opinion on that, like you said here yourself, "what it's currently defined as". Some, including yourself think it's a discrimination, but I think most of us just don't believe that marriage is anything outside of one man and a one woman. But as I've said, I would support an arrangement that will give gay couples the equal rights as the married couple. And my gut feeling is that in coming decade or two, society will give in to the gay marriage demand. I don't see this as the end of discrimination against gays, but "marriage" evolving to the needs/lifestyle of the society.

 

[Swift]

We've clearly indicated numerous other times when things JUST WERE and nobody had a problem with correcting the government when it was wrong. So why is this one highly particular issue suddenly sacrosanct?

So, if the government had never defined marriage as "man and woman", you wouldn't have a problem with gays being "married"? Other than your obvious dislike of homosexuality in general, which is a somewhat separate issue.

Forgive me for finding that hard to believe.

You missed my meaning. The government NEVER should have linked legal implications to the title of marriage.

Well, duh, of course it's not the same as your parents' marriage. Is your marriage the same as your parents' marriage? No. Is mine? No. Is mine the same as Danoff's? No.

So what?

None of you will admit it (maybe not even to yourselves), but frankly, I suspect that you all think homosexuals are not capable of forming stable, loving, committed monogamous relationships. I think deep down you secretly feel that all gays are nothing but promiscuous sluts who want to co-opt respectability by claiming the title of "marriage".

I just don't think it's fair to traditional couples to have the same title as homosexual couples. Isn't all this about being fair?

 

[Duke]

You missed my meaning. The government NEVER should have linked legal implications to the title of marriage.

This makes no sense to me. Because they shouldn't have done it in the first place, we're somehow permanently prohibited from correcting the situation?! Then why was it OK to let women vote or to have black people count as real citizens?

I just don't think it's fair to traditional couples to have the same title as homosexual couples. Isn't all this about being fair?

Apparently not, since you want to reserve something for one particular type of person. Sounds a lot like Jim Crow to me.

The more your side falls back on the "it just shouldn't be, that's all" position, the more deeply I feel justified in my analysis above.

 

[Mark T]

One other question to annoy everyone.

Should a man be allowed to marry two women if all parties agree?

 

[Pako]

*snip*

So, if the government had never defined marriage as "man and woman", you wouldn't have a problem with gays being "married"?

Well duh?!? That's a little silly don't you think? If we could change history, a lot of things would be different.

A mom is capable of forming stable, loving, committed monogamous relationships with her son or daughter. Or a father with his son or daughter. Should we allow them marriage? Danoff says yes, what about you Duke?

 

[Duke]

One other question to annoy everyone.

Should a man be allowed to marry two women if all parties agree?

I think so, but I wasn't going to raise that question. Don't want to scare the natives any more than I already have.

I can see a defensible support for all kinds of domestic arrangements that can lead to a stronger family unit - I see no reason that a group marriage of 2 men and 2 women couldn't make an extremely reliable and stable family group for supporting and raising children.

Well duh?!? That's a little silly don't you think? If we could change history, a lot of things would be different.

So you're strictly basing this on the word choice of the original legal definition? And saying that your objection would evaporate otherwise?

I really don't believe that.

A mom is capable of forming stable, loving, committed monogamous relationships with her son or daughter. Or a father with his son. Should we allow them marriage? Danoff says yes, what about you Duke?

1) Age of consent criteria at the very least should prevent that from happening. And I would also submit that even an adult child is not capable of making an informed consent to a romantic (for want of a better word) relationship with a parent.Take a look at Paula Deen's sons if you want an example of what I'm talking about.

2) Even considering that a major child (over 18) decides to marry a parent, there are real genetic reasons to prevent inbreeding that makes parent/child incest (or, genetically worse, sibling incest) dangerous and taboo. Wfooshee claimed that homosexuality was a genetic "dead end" because no genetics are passed on to a new generation. That's true as far as it goes, but does not actively harm the species. However, inbreeding does cause active harm to the species as a whole by reinforcing harmful recessive genes. There's a reason that many of the crowned heads of Europe were haemophiliacs, for instance.

Both of these reasons I think are valid and logical reasons to prohibit incestual marriages.

 

[Swift]

This makes no sense to me. Because they shouldn't have done it in the first place, we're somehow permanently prohibited from correcting the situation?! Then why was it OK to let women vote or to have black people count as real citizens?

Apparently not, since you want to reserve something for one particular type of person. Sounds a lot like Jim Crow to me.

No because they shouldn't have done it in the first place, we shouldn't take something that many people hold sacred and completely revamp the definition of. This is not expanding the law, like the reversal of separate but equal. This is a total redefinition of a title, not rights, but a title.

The more your side falls back on the "it just shouldn't be, that's all" position, the more deeply I feel justified in my analysis above.

Interesting, because the more you talk about separate but equal and discrimination, the more I say civil unions make more sense.

I still fail to see how a title is separate but equal.

 

[Duke]

No because they shouldn't have done it in the first place, we shouldn't take something that many people hold sacred and completely revamp the definition of. This is not expanding the law, like the reversal of separate but equal. This is a total redefinition of a title, not rights, but a title.

I'm utterly failing to follow you here. You hold the definition sacred but admit it shouldn't have been defined in the first place? Idungeddit.

Interesting, because the more you talk about separate but equal and discrimination, the more I say civil unions make more sense.

I still fail to see how a title is separate but equal.

Two water fountains. One has a sign over it that says WHITES ONLY. That's the title of that watercooler; its definition. Clear enough?

 

[Swift]

I'm utterly failing to follow you here. You hold the definition sacred but admit it shouldn't have been defined in the first place? Idungeddit.

I'm saying the government shouldn't have applied legal tendencies to the title.

Two water fountains. One has a sign over it that says WHITES ONLY. That's the title of that watercooler; its definition. Clear enough?

But the inherent problem with that was that the whites only one was an actual water fountain and the black one was well, not quite as nice.

In this case, it's more like a DMV. You go through one door for your marriage if you're straight and one door if your gay. You get the same rights and privileges with your driver's license. It just has an S or an H on it.

 

[Duke]

I'm saying the government shouldn't have applied legal tendencies to the title.

...nor should they have denied women the vote or counted blacks as 3/5ths of a person, yet you have no trouble whatsoever second-guessing the government on those issues.

But the inherent problem with that was that the whites only one was an actual water fountain and the black one was well, not quite as nice.

Then it's not equal, is it? So let's be scrupulous about it: a brand new pair of Halsey-Taylor, certified lead-free, handicap-accessible, chilled water fountains right next to each other. Only difference is one is titled WHITES ONLY. You're telling me you wouldn't have a problem with it?

In this case, it's more like a DMV. You go through one door for your marriage if you're straight and one door if your gay. You get the same rights and privileges with your driver's license. It just has an S or an H on it.

And it's called a Driver's License in both cases. It's not called something else for the gay folks.

 

[Zrow]

But would you be okay with two equally nice water fountains for blacks and whites?

The inherent problem was the fact separation of the two, not the condition of the fountains.

EDIT: Tree'd!

 

[Minnesota01R6]

To be fair, marriage is a civil union in the same way a square is a rectangle - one just has more requirements. (A square is a rectangle with all sides equal length, a marriage is a civil union between two members of the opposite sex).

I also don't think the "seperate but equal" argument applies. Gay people have just as much opportunity to enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite sex as straight people. Conversely, Straight people have just as much a right to enter into a civil union with a member of the same sex as homosexuals do. It's just that neither side would want to do that.

The argument seems to boil down to political correctness: changing the meaning or definition of a word in order that some people don't feel left out. We don't change the definition of a "square" just because the rectangles will feel left out.

Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the people. No more tax breaks for married couples, no more court battles about divorce. Let churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples perform whatever religious ceremonies they wish, but don't allow it to have any legal consequences.

 

[UnoMOTO]

This is getting to be redundant, nit picky, petty and redundant. Since when has it become un-American to stand up for what you believe in? Why should the minority get to decide what’s good for the majority? If this were truly a problem in this country it would have already been corrected. Blacks and women were a problem and have since been corrected. I don’t see why you guys keep bringing up a problem that no-longer exists.

As I have posted before just to ad to the redundancy, 43 out of 50 states have something on the books about what the definition of marriage is. It’s not just the likes of Pako and Swift that feel this way. Until there is a need or that enough people would be affected by changing the definition, it will remain what it currently is. That is the American way, for the people by the people.

 

[Duke]

If this were truly a problem in this country it would have already been corrected. Blacks and women were a problem and have since been corrected. I don’t see why you guys keep bringing up a problem that no-longer exists.

Because it WAS a problem that was CORRECTED.

As I have posted before just to ad to the redundancy, 43 out of 50 states have something on the books about what the definition of marriage is. It’s not just the likes of Pako and Swift that feel this way. Until there is a need or that enough people would be affected by changing the definition, it will remain what it currently is. That is the American way, for the people by the people.

The Constitution is there so that it is NOT a blind majority rule. Majority rule, yes, (that's democracy for you) but there are legal LIMITS to what the majority can vote away from the minority. No matter how you care to slice it, making homosexual marriages illegal is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it denies equal protection under the law to an identified subgroup. It's got ****-all to do with political correctness. PC-ism, while it exists and should be destroyed, is a handy straw man for the right wing to blame everything on.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Because it WAS a problem that was CORRECTED.

The Constitution is there so that it is NOT a blind majority rule. Majority rule, yes, (that's democracy for you) but there are legal LIMITS to what the majority can vote away from the minority. No matter how you care to slice it, making homosexual marriages illegal is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it denies equal protection under the law to an identified subgroup. It's got ****-all to do with political correctness. PC-ism, while it exists and should be destroyed, is a handy straw man for the right wing to blame everything on.

I applaud your effort and hope that you continue to fight for what you believe in. That’s what makes you a great American. I Hate PC-ism with a passion. Trying to live life without hurting anyones feelings is what's getting us in to postions like this one.

 

[Danoff]

Unfortunatly they have the individual right to vote anyway they see fit. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong. Thats the way our country is and how it should stay.

Actually, that's not the way the country is. If you voted for a proposition that was unconstitutional, it would be stricken down by the supreme court. If you voted for legislators that passed an unconstitutional law, it would be stricken down by the supreme court. Why? Because there are limits to what the government can do - it is bound by the constitution just so that the majority cannot form a tyranny over the minority.... every American should already know this about their country.

They don't offically have that right to begin with because its not in the constitution or the bill of rights. I can't take away something you never had in the first place.

They have a right to equal treatment from the law.

Ok...You keep repeating yourself and now its time to pony up. Give me an example how how to implement your idea of the minority gaining control of there own lives. To what extent do you want self government. How do you propose if a group of ten people want to make getting married to dogs legal. Pick any idea you want...even gay marriage if you like. Tell us how it is actually GOING to happen of only 10% of the population wants it to become a law. Give us the Danoff solution to the problem with minority rights.

I started a thread on human rights, and that's probably a better place for it than here, but I'll summarize.

Human rights are given to adult humans because thier brains are capable of understanding the concept, and because their lives cannot be objectively defined as more valuable or superior to each other.

Already I've said quite a bit. I've given a reason why human adults (not children, not animals) have rights and why their rights cannot differ. These rights are "inalienable", and they arise from reason alone. Because they are inalienable, and because they arise from reason, you cannot vote on these rights. They simply exist. Any change to the constitution modifying these rights is made from the standpoint of reason - not majority.

Fundamentally, our constitution cannot be voted upon, and it cannot be voilated regardless of the number of votes in favor of it's violation. The function of the constitution is to limit government so that people who wish to violate the basic principles of government (equal protection, free speech, etc. etc.) are unable to do so.

You missed my meaning. The government NEVER should have linked legal implications to the title of marriage.

Marriage is a very useful legal construct. Without it property and guardianship rights could get very tricky. We need the legal institution of marriage, and gay people need it too (because they have the same property and guardianship issues that straight people do). This is why the government linked legal implications to marriage. What you have to do is understand that there is a difference between legal marriage and religious marriage. You religion can refuse to recognize marriages that are recognized legally - that's ok, that's the great thing about America.

I just don't think it's fair to traditional couples to have the same title as homosexual couples. Isn't all this about being fair?

Because you like the government to label you as different (superior) to others - but that's an unacceptable role for government to play.

Should a man be allowed to marry two women if all parties agree?

I think so, from a legal point of view. If they want to mingle their property rights or guardianship rights that's fine by me. But marriage was first and foremost an institution created to support the human pair bonding instinct - an instinct that goes much farther than sex alone. I think it's ok to draw a limit at two for that reason, but I wouldn't have a problem if it were expanded.

A mom is capable of forming stable, loving, committed monogamous relationships with her son or daughter. Or a father with his son or daughter. Should we allow them marriage? Danoff says yes, what about you Duke?

I say yes (if the child is an adult), but I'm all in favor of a law preventing siblings from having children. Also, a special legal relationship is already given to parents and their children, so there is very little need to form a marriage to establish a legal relationship.

To be fair, marriage is a civil union in the same way a square is a rectangle - one just has more requirements. (A square is a rectangle with all sides equal length, a marriage is a civil union between two members of the opposite sex).

Unecessarly labeling from a government who's job it is to treat its citizens equally.

I also don't think the "seperate but equal" argument applies. Gay people have just as much opportunity to enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite sex as straight people. Conversely, Straight people have just as much a right to enter into a civil union with a member of the same sex as homosexuals do. It's just that neither side would want to do that.

How does that refute the concept of separate but equal? Michael Jackson made himself white, if that makes him able to use the white water fountain are we cool then?

Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the people. No more tax breaks for married couples, no more court battles about divorce. Let churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples perform whatever religious ceremonies they wish, but don't allow it to have any legal consequences.

Perhaps the chuches, synagogues, mosques, and temples should determine what they see marriage as and not let the law dictate the definition of their "sacred bonds" to them.

This is getting to be redundant, nit picky, petty and redundant. Since when has it become un-American to stand up for what you believe in?

When you believe in un-American things, I think the word fits. Example - it is un-American to stand up for a belief in communism. This is because communism goes against the very foundations, and principles upon which America was founded.

Why should the minority get to decide what’s good for the majority? If this were truly a problem in this country it would have already been corrected.

Flawless logic. If it was a problem, why hasn't it been fixed??? I guess all of the problems have been fixed then and we should just assume everything is perfect.

As I have posted before just to ad to the redundancy, 43 out of 50 states have something on the books about what the definition of marriage is. It’s not just the likes of Pako and Swift that feel this way. Until there is a need or that enough people would be affected by changing the definition, it will remain what it currently is. That is the American way, for the people by the people.[/COLOR]

No. America is about human rights and limited government, not about a tyranny of the majority. You seriously should understand the country in which you live a LOT better.

 

[UnoMOTO]

No. America is about human rights and limited government, not about a tyranny of the majority. You seriously should understand the country in which you live a LOT better.

Tyranny suggests that you think we live in an oppressive soceity. Do you think that you really live in a police state? I know you are on a soap box about this but how has the MAN oppressed you directly. You have many valid points but I believe that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill with out much evidence of the United States being a Tyranny! Bad choice of words.

 

[Duke]

Tyranny suggests that you think we live in an oppressive soceity. Do you think that you really live in a police state? I know you are on a soap box about this but how has the MAN oppressed you directly. You have many valid points but I believe that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill with out much evidence of the United States being a Tyranny! Bad choice of words.

I'm going to presume here and answer for Danoff. He does not think we currently live in a particularly oppressive society.

However, if law is decided by simple majority vote (without the test of constitutionality to legitimize each law) then the will of the majority immediately is in danger of becoming a "tyranny of the majority" against any particular minority. That's what he was saying.

If there is no requirement test for constitutionality, then the majority could vote in a "Gay Tax" that says homosexuals must pay 90% of their income to the IRS, and nothing would save that minority from it.

Checks and balances, ya know.