7 comments

• 

  J.P. Hamilton

  7 months ago

  I think part of the problem comes from the mixing of your religion into our government. Why shouldn't there should be the concept of a "civil union" (for legal purposes) that is available to any two, consenting adults? The church could keep "marriage" and all that entails, and make its own rules accordingly. If it doesn't want to marry gay people, so be it.
  
  I am guessing that if a large group of people came together and decided to vote on how you could or could not practice your religion, your response would be quite different than what you posted here. Put aside any excuses you might be tempted to make and put yourself in their shoes for a moment. The process is called empathy, and I see a lack of it from many people who share your beliefs. At least that is how it comes across to me when I read your blog.
  
  Scum? Would you say the same to the women and blacks of this country who fought for their rights over the years? Again, I am guessing you would not. Really, it seems to me that you are the one missing the point.
  reply
• 

  Michael Koby

  7 months ago

  If a large number of people voted on how I could or could not practice my
  religion it would further prove my theory that this country has lost it core
  values. However I doubt that would happen.
  
  My "scum" reference was very specifically focused on those that are fighting
  something in court that was voted on "by the people" and how getting that
  passing vote turned over would cause more people to believe that the voting
  system in this country does not work. We already have a good chunk of the
  population believe that their vote doesn't count. If the passing of
  proposition 8 is overturned in court then it just goes to prove to those
  that don't vote because they believe it won't make a difference that they
  are right.
  
  Why vote for something if it's only going to be turned over in court when
  the people who voted didn't vote the way everyone thought they should. This
  is exactly what's happening in California and find it to be a great
  disservice to all those that took the time on Nov. 4th to vote. The PROPER
  way to handle this would be to get a motion on the next ballot to overturn
  the passing of Proposition 8. Since it was voted on and passed the
  systematic and democratic way for those people that voted NO on it to get
  what they want would be to have it on the next ballot, call a special
  election, or something similar. NOT to have the fact that it passed turned
  over in court of law.
  
  The ending of black and woman's sufferage were amendments to constitution, which
  means, they had to be voted on. If gays want their right to marry, then
  should they not go through the same process as blacks and women?
  
  After all, isn't that what democracy is about?
  reply
• 

  -

  7 months ago

  ...
  reply
• 

  Diadem4Drummer

  7 months ago

  Good Article. I read the Olbermann content and I thought he had some good points, but he just sounded angry and no one wants to talk to angry people because they can't be reasoned with. It's their way or the highway (or so it's always seemed to me).
  
  With that being said, I agree with the author here in saying we do have voting and if we want to keep people from being disenfranchised, we need to follow the ideas of the founding fathers, even if it means it takes a bit longer. My proof to back up my argument in this debate is simply the fact that this past election day, my town finally passed a measure to allow liquor stores in town. This measure finally passed after failing in 1999 and again 2006. The point is that if it fails now, simply get it put on the next ballot...and you keep doing it until you get it where you want it.
  
  Really in a perfect world, if we would've listened to VERY smart men like Thomas Jefferson who said, "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits," we'd be much better off.
  If this would've been adhered to, then we wouldn't have had to free the slaves or allow women to vote or give blacks equal rights because they would've had them from the get go. Of course, then Keith Olbermann wouldn't be ranting about the rights of gays to marry because they would have it.
  
  My point is that voting is the one power we as individuals have over our government and the idea is that since you can't please all the people all the time, you should try to please most of the people most of the time (majority rules). If you don't think the results of a given vote are wrong, then you should get out and logically and rationally educate people why they need to see your POV and why it's better for the majority.
  
  But that's just my 2 cents...
  reply
• 

  Donna

  7 months ago

  Actually, I think your idea that the disenfranchised minority can wait for their rights until the majority sees their point of view goes against how women and non[-whites got votes and rights. Slavery, the disenfranchisement of women and other things have all been legal, popular and wrong in the past.
  The process you have for putting propositions forward is biased against minority groups. Imagine if the proportion of gays and straights was reversed...would YOU feel it was fair for US to vote on your right to marry? I doubt it.
  Really , the only ones who should decide whether I can marry or not are myself and my prospective partner. Why should anyone else get a say?
  reply
• 

  Michael Koby

  7 months ago

  Actually, it doesn't go against it. Both were amendments to the
  constitution, the only way to amend the constitution is for it to be voted
  as such. Article V of the constitution states as such (abbreviated to
  conserve space)
  
  *"*...shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
  Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
  several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof...*"* (complete
  text can be found on wikipedia at
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_th...)
  
  The only way for an amendment to actually become an amendment is for it to
  be voted for by 3/4's of the his country's states. So again, no, my "idea"
  does not go against how women and non-whites got votes and rights (see the
  19th and 15th amendments respectively).
  
  What you are suggesting is that the minority rule the majority. You are
  also further arguing that it is okay to for people to go to court and
  forcibly take what they want regardless if it will cause people's vote to
  not count. Basically saying, "Hey, it's okay if those people feel like
  their votes don't count as long as i get what I want" and that is just not
  fair to those that took time out of their day to go and vote their stance on
  an issue.
  
  I'm not arguing if the current system is right or wrong. That's not what
  this post was about. The current system is flawed and I have never once
  stated that it was perfect. However, the system as it stands is the system
  that we must deal with. Why should gays be different than women or
  non-whites and get what they want by judicial interpretation (which is what
  it is if the courts in CA rule against the passing of Prop 8) when women and
  non-whites had to work with in the system to achieve their goals? Are you
  arguing that gays are some how different than women or non-whites and thus
  should be treated with even more special care?
  
  You argue that it is wrong and unfair for the minority to have to wait for
  the majority to see their point of view. However, that's exactly what women
  and non-whites had to do. And you know what? It worked for them. They
  have rights to vote now. I'm sure that if the gays want to marry that
  badly, they can get a new proposition on the next ballot and have it pass.
  But they should still work within the system as it currently stands not find
  loopholes that cause millions of voters to feel like their vote didn't
  count.
  
  Also, as of Nov. 4th I am in a minority. I'm in a minority of people who
  don't believe Obama was a good choice for president. I am 1 of a VERY small
  number among my friends, peers, and co-workers. In this case, the system
  did not work the way I wanted it to. But you know what? That's the way it
  goes sometimes. I have to deal with 4 yars under a leader i neither voted
  for or wanted. You don't see me throwing a "world class hissy" do you?
  Why? Because in 4 years I get another chance to vote against Obama, and
  I'll do it again. Just because the system doesn't work the way one wants it
  to, doesn't give a minority of people the right to forcibly take what they
  want. Regardless if you like the system's results, you still live within
  that system and should abide by it until such time the system can be modifed
  and made better.
  reply
• 

  Some Guy

  7 months ago

  Here here. It took black people 100 yrs to be free as slaves and finally get the rights to not be legally judged based on the color of their skin (something they couldn't help be born with).
  It may take 100 yrs for LGBT people to get the same rights, but they'll eventually get it if they stay at it within the system we have...or change the system so it's not flawed (like Michael said...and I agree with).
  
  I also agree with Diadem's post. Really the government shouldn't have the right to restrain or aid it's people in their pursuits (unless intervening will save a human life from harm by another), and maybe that's the part of the system that is flawed that we need to fix.
  reply