|
Post by Tiger on Feb 9, 2010 14:56:24 GMT -5
|
|
IanC
Full Member
Posts: 207
|
Post by IanC on Feb 9, 2010 17:15:38 GMT -5
All 62 Republicans?
Crazy...
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Feb 9, 2010 18:01:11 GMT -5
All 62 Republicans? Crazy... disappointing but not surprising....
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Feb 9, 2010 18:44:55 GMT -5
Haha, fuck you religious douche bags, fuck you
|
|
|
Post by Whore of Spamylon on Feb 9, 2010 19:04:00 GMT -5
If I'm reading that right, it means that it's effectively impossible for a resolution amending Iowa's constitution to ban gay marriage to go on the ballot this November. Today is a good day. Even though I interpret the constitution as requiring gay marriage (if marriage itself is legally recognized in any form), I really don't see why not having something on a ballot for direct public consensus is a good thing. Look at it this way: If it were on the ballot, the prospect of defeating it could further advance the notion of legitimacy for gay rights in general. Otherwise, this only serves as ammunition for the right-wing in order to label the centre-left as supposed judicial activists.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 9, 2010 19:09:27 GMT -5
Rights have never been granted from the ballot and it is just opening up the possibility of tyranny of the majority to allow people to vote on other people's rights.
|
|
|
Post by Whore of Spamylon on Feb 9, 2010 19:30:15 GMT -5
Rights have never been granted from the ballot... Really? Can you say Kansas-Nebraska Act? Because that possibility doesn't exist as of right now I am sure.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 9, 2010 19:48:02 GMT -5
Would Georgia or Alabama or Arkansas have voted to give them rights? How about the Carolinas? Small gains, sure, big ones, no. There are people that need to be dragged kicking and screaming which is why voting is not the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Feb 9, 2010 20:02:09 GMT -5
Would interracial marriage be legal if it had been up for popular vote? Hell, if it was put up for a vote to retain it how many states would stop having it?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 9, 2010 20:03:35 GMT -5
Would interracial marriage be legal if it had been up for popular vote? Hell, if it was put up for a vote to retain it how many states would stop having it? Well, when you considering this incident, not likely to have all of them.
|
|
|
Post by Whore of Spamylon on Feb 9, 2010 20:16:23 GMT -5
Would Georgia or Alabama or Arkansas have voted to give them rights? How about the Carolinas? Small gains, sure, big ones, no. There are people that need to be dragged kicking and screaming which is why voting is not the way to go. First of all, I was simply pointing out how your absolute statement is incorrect. There is also the question as to whether their respective Supreme Courts would have deviated from the general consciousness of the citizens at the time as well. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of many constitutional rulings that extremely deviate from the public consensus of the given time in which they are made, regardless of what one believes the correct interpretation of this or that is to be. There are rulings against the majority, sure, but not overwhelming majorities. And no, I am not saying to roll over to tyranny of the majority in cases that you have mentioned. I was simply point out that, in my personal opinion, if one wants to both mandate a civil right AND enforce said civil right, building public consciousness is key. And no, I am not disregarding the court as an entity that is important to civil rights, but relaying on the court "only" is not only futile, but will probably regress your cause if you send the message to the general public that they are stupid by disregarding their opinion entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Deimos on Feb 9, 2010 20:18:46 GMT -5
We have taken over Iowa, and we shall mate with your men
|
|
|
Post by Whore of Spamylon on Feb 9, 2010 20:20:38 GMT -5
Would interracial marriage be legal if it had been up for popular vote? Hell, if it was put up for a vote to retain it how many states would stop having it? Again, I am not saying that rights are to be at the mercy of a public majority. I was simply pointing out that having legislature and/or public conscious approve of this or that civil right further adds to the legitimacy of said civil right in the public eye. It's called soft power.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Feb 9, 2010 20:26:22 GMT -5
But if such a public vote actually means anything for the ruling then it does mean there can be tyranny of the majority. If the public vote doesn't mean anything, then that will only enrage the populace as they will feel that none of their votes mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Feb 10, 2010 1:49:34 GMT -5
But if such a public vote actually means anything for the ruling then it does mean there can be tyranny of the majority. If the public vote doesn't mean anything, then that will only enrage the populace as they will feel that none of their votes mean anything. Very true
|
|