Let's talk about the election results : OFFTOPIC with (Ala)BamaFan

[Duo]

My point was that many ppl who have never been to the US or don't know much about ti, are not, or at least were aware of the conservatism in this country. Perhaps my diction was wrong before, I'm sorry, I might have been in a hurry.

 

[Maciamo]

But "listening to the minorities" doesn't equal "letting the minorities have their own way". People in several US states did listen to the minorities; they put the matter to a vote. With the uniform result of the minority losing overwhelmingly.

Well with this kind of logic ("the stonger wins"), we will never be on the same wavelength. I was taught since a preety young age that the true meaning of democracy was justly not the law of the jungle ("the stonger wins"), but accepting and protecting the minorities so that everybody can live in peace. Laws allowing gay marriage do not affect non gay people at all. The best proof is that if you ask 100 people in a country where gay marriage is legal, most people will not even know whether it is legal or not, and certainly not see any difference whether it is or not.

When liberals control the government, we hear "the majority rules".
When conservatives control government, we hear "if you don't accede to our wishes, you're not democratic".

What might have happened is that conservatives want laws that do not create concensus or the best alternative for everybody. The point of liberalism is to give as much freedom to people as possible that does not harm other's. In the case of gay marriage, legalising it does not harm those who are not gay, but protect gay's right. So this is a solution that is best for everybody. Controversial conservative ideas are those that restrict people's rights and freedom. I thought that many Americans were proud to live in the freest country in the world. That must just be the liberals (if they were in power, at least, as the present US is far from being a free or tolerant country).

Those who support measures legalizing gay marriage were able to freely assemble....a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and a basic principle of democracy.

Those who support measures legalizing gay marriage were able to freely voice their opinions....a a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and a basic principle of democracy.

So what ? Can't conservative freely assemble and voice their opinion anytime they want (thanks to a liberal constitution) ? That doesn't mean all their opinions take everyone's needs into considerarion. Besides, nowadays it seems that most American conservatives are also Christians. Personally if I were conservative, as an atheist, that would mean suppressing marriage as a whole and replacing it by civil unions, because that is what I believe in. But as a liberal, my religious convinctions don't matter as I should care about everybody's liberties and rights, and find the best consensus.

What I want to say is that being liberal or conservative is completely independent from one's religious affiliations. There are liberal Christians (in Europe) and conservative Atheists (eg. during the French revolution, when they banned religion altogether until Napoleon restored it). In the US now, most conservatives are Christians and most liberals are not or not as devoutly. As a results it makes the Christians look as a bunch of intolerant, eventhough many of them are in fact liberal.

In think there is no place for conservative intolerance in a developed and modern society (sarcastic note : unfortunately it has been difficult bringing civilization to remote and wild regions of the USA ). People are free to be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, or whatever, as long as they respect each other's freedom. That is the essence of liberalism.

 

[Mike Cash]

Well with this kind of logic ("the stonger wins"), we will never be on the same wavelength. I was taught since a preety young age that the true meaning of democracy was justly not the law of the jungle ("the stonger wins"), but accepting and protecting the minorities so that everybody can live in peace. Laws allowing gay marriage do not affect non gay people at all. The best proof is that if you ask 100 people in a country where gay marriage is legal, most people will not even know whether it is legal or not, and certainly not see any difference whether it is or not.

But when avoiding the appearance of "law of the jungle" it is important not to go overboard. In the states where gay marriage legalization issues were on the ballot, they lost by large margins. By huge margins. An overwhelming percentage of the electorate in those states against it.

I'm not arguing for or against gay marriage with you here, or trying to say that their being allowed to marry would have a negative affect on anyone. That's entirely beside the point here. The point is that on issues which are decided by elections, the side which can amass a majority carries the day. On this issue, where it was on the ballots, a huge proportion of the people voting said "No, we don't want gay marriage in our state". One may not like the outcome, but one can hardly say it isn't democratic.

What might have happened is that conservatives want laws that do not create concensus or the best alternative for everybody.

This is also the norm when the liberals manage to get control over any aspect of the government. But we don't hear liberals complain about it when that happens.

One doesn't need consensus (an unattainable illusion anyway) to govern. One only needs a majority.

The point of liberalism is to give as much freedom to people as possible that does not harm other's.

The point of liberalism is for a few self-appointed elites to concentrate power into the hands of the govenment and make the people dependent upon them.

In the case of gay marriage, legalising it does not harm those who are not gay, but protect gay's right.

The "right" to marry has yet to be recognized. This is a point of contention still. I don't disagree that legalizing it does no harm. I just disagree that it should be legalized against the expressed wishes of a preponderance of the electorate.

I fully support the rights of those who wish for the legalization of gay marriage to continue publicizing their plight and to convince others of the rightness of their position, and to continue to seek legislative solutions to the problem. In other words....I think the building of consensus is more incumbent on the minority than upon the majority.

 

[bossel]

One may not like the outcome, but one can hardly say it isn't democratic.

But isn't democracy also about equal rights for everybody? It's not only the majority that counts.

The point of liberalism is for a few self-appointed elites to concentrate power into the hands of the govenment and make the people dependent upon them.

Maybe you 2 are talking about different definitions of liberalism? Maybe in the US you define it more as "leftist/socialist" while we in Europe actually use a definition closer to the original meaning of liberal. Which would be something like what Maciamo said:
"The point of liberalism is to give as much freedom to people as possible that does not harm other's."

 

[TwistedMac]

But isn't democracy also about equal rights for everybody? It's not only the majority that counts.

technically, you could see democracy as an alternative to civil wars.
the side with the most people are the strongest, so they get to choose what laws are in effect, cuz if a conflict came out of it they would probably win anyway, so this way we avoid bloodshed.

If you look at it like that, the minority is unfortunatelly not going to get any breaks.

I can't really get a good grip of what exactly defines the word democracy as everyone (and every country) seems to have a slightly different take on it.

This was just my attempt to trace it back to the roots.

 

[Elizabeth]

I fully support the rights of those who wish for the legalization of gay marriage to continue publicizing their plight and to convince others of the rightness of their position, and to continue to seek legislative solutions to the problem. In other words....I think the building of consensus is more incumbent on the minority than upon the majority.

I still don't see how state amendments banning gay marriage are that different from sodomy laws the Supreme Court has already struck down which expressly discriminated between heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sodomy on Equal Protection grounds that laws or statutes cannot prohibit something for one group and not for another. The only difference being one is private and the other is a state function. :?

 

[Mike Cash]

But isn't democracy also about equal rights for everybody? It's not only the majority that counts.

But it is only the majority that counts when the votes are totalled.

Nobody questions that everyone should have equal rights. But it is not universally accepted that marriage is a right, gay or otherwise.

Maybe you 2 are talking about different definitions of liberalism? Maybe in the US you define it more as "leftist/socialist" while we in Europe actually use a definition closer to the original meaning of liberal. Which would be something like what Maciamo said:
"The point of liberalism is to give as much freedom to people as possible that does not harm other's."

Yes, that is what we call "conservatism".

I still don't see how state amendments banning gay marriage are that different from sodomy laws the Supreme Court has already struck down which expressly discriminated between heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sodomy on Equal Protection grounds that laws or statutes cannot prohibit something for one group and not for another. The only difference being one is private and the other is a state function. :?

And that is why some people support amending the US Constitution. It is the only 100% sure-fire way of cutting off challenges under the equal protection clause.

Amendments to state constitutions can be rendered void if they are found to not comply with the US Constitution. And we all know that it wouldn't be a very long wait before a test case came along and the Supreme Court agreed to hear it.

Supporters of gay marriage need to consider the relative benefits and drawbacks of differing ways of achieving their goals. Building acceptance, understanding, and support from the bottom upwards (through the people, to the legislature) will, in my opinion, have a much higher chance of success and far less societal backlash and resentment than opting for a more top downwards (from the judiciary, to the populace) approach.

In other words, if/when supporters finally achieve the goal and gay marriage becomes legalized, they're still going to have to live and work in the same society they lived in the day before it became legalized. And it would probably make for a more painless transition all around if the change was a result of popular support rather than down-yer-throat rulings from the bench, be they right or wrong.

 

[Maciamo]

Supporters of gay marriage need to consider the relative benefits and drawbacks of differing ways of achieving their goals. Building acceptance, understanding, and support from the bottom upwards (through the people, to the legislature) will, in my opinion, have a much higher chance of success and far less societal backlash and resentment than opting for a more top downwards (from the judiciary, to the populace) approach.

In other words, if/when supporters finally achieve the goal and gay marriage becomes legalized, they're still going to have to live and work in the same society they lived in the day before it became legalized. And it would probably make for a more painless transition all around if the change was a result of popular support rather than down-yer-throat rulings from the bench, be they right or wrong.

You have a point here, and I agree that it is normally better for the decision to come from the bottom upwards than the opposite. But in the case of minority rights, it often has to go the other way round, because the majority has no interest in protecting the minority in question.

What is more, in the particular case of gay marriage, I don't think anybody could know whether a gay couple is married or just cohabiting if they haven't asked them directly. So even neighbours or workmates wouldn't know whether they are married or not. With regards to this, in what way could it backlash or create resentment ? Not every gay couples wants to get married. Certainly not more than heterosexual couples and probably less. So, even with gay marriage becoming legal, people have no way to know whether the gay couples they know (first they need to know some, and know they are gay) are married or not ?

Again, it is not for homosexuality itself that people are asked to voice their approval or dsiapproval in votes, but just the issue of marriage, i.e. legal (and not social) recognition in order to get some benefits. I feel that American people who oppose gay marriage actually oppose homosexuality for itself and call it unnatural or immoral or against Christianity or whatever. But nobody asked them their opinion on this subject at the last election. Nobody was going to make homosexuality illegal or criminal anyway. And even if the voters wanted to, they should create some special petitions for it and not mixing it with the legal issue of marriage. I would understand that people vote for 'gay marriage' eventhough they don't feel comfortable with homosexuality. But I don't understand why they don't try to make homosexuality illegal if they hate gays so much as to not grant them equal rights.

1) You can be gay or gay supporter and vote for gay marriage.
2) You can be neutral or not feeling comfortable with 'gayness', but be tolerant and vote for gay marriage.
3) Or you can be intolerant and vote against gay marriage and want to ban homosexuality as a whole.

But there is no way someone who votes against gay marriage would not deeply dislike homosexuals to the point they want to ban them from society.

So all those people who voted against gay marriage are actually immature or hateful enough to want to harm gays or ban homosexuality. And this is the US society where "an overwhelming majority of people voted against gay rights" ? Who would like to live in such a country that does not harbour a Hitler in his/her heart ?

 

[Elizabeth]

So all those people who voted against gay marriage are actually immature or hateful enough to want to harm gays or ban homosexuality. And this is the US society where "an overwhelming majority of people voted against gay rights" ? Who would like to live in such a country that does not harbour a Hitler in his/her heart ?

It isn't exactly like leading Democrats, ie John Kerry and Bill Clinton, are gay marriage advocates either or an "overwhelming" majority voted against it since it was only on the ballot in conservative states. Civil Unions sound like a good compromise -- one major impediment in the US at least being the "Defense of Marriage Act," signed by Clinton, which makes thousands of federal benefits contingent on marriage only as the union of a man and a woman as well as not requiring states to recognize Civil Union laws of other states, well only in Vermont at the moment. Which, by the way, was violently opposed just four years ago and now, partially as a backlash against the outpouring of hatred by evangelicals and others, even has the president's support. So the status quo and especially people's concept of something as central as marriage always takes time to change, but the trend is certainly towards a broader acceptance of gays & lesbians as part of society.

 

[bossel]

But it is only the majority that counts when the votes are totalled.

Maciamo answered that one very well.

Nobody questions that everyone should have equal rights. But it is not universally accepted that marriage is a right, gay or otherwise.

Since marriage brings certain advantages, to withhold these from parts of the population (for religious reasons) equals discrimination.

Yes, that is what we call "conservatism".

Since gay marriage does not hurt anybody, there is no hindrance on allowing it. So, you are saying conservatives are actually pro gay marriage?

 

[Maciamo]

Civil Unions sound like a good compromise -- one major impediment in the US at least being the "Defense of Marriage Act," signed by Clinton, which makes thousands of federal benefits contingent on marriage only as the union of a man and a woman as well as not requiring states to recognize Civil Union laws of other states, well only in Vermont at the moment.

Maybe the solution would be to give the exact same rights to all civil unions as for marriages, so that traditionalits can't complain about the sacred values of marriage and blablah. I guess that would suit gays as they get their benefits and can still get a non-official religious ceremony if they want.

 

[Glenn]

Maybe the solution would be to give the exact same rights to all civil unions as for marriages, so that traditionalits can't complain about the sacred values of marriage and blablah. I guess that would suit gays as they get their benefits and can still get a non-official religious ceremony if they want.

It would suit them if they don't want the same rights to religious ceremony, but what if they do? This may sound out there, but I think there are religious gays who want to go through the religious ceremony as well as just get the legal documentation and benefits. I remember hearing something about it, so it isn't ironclad, but it's still something to consider. Would those gays just have to give up on that dream?

 

[CC1]

Good post Maciamo

Maybe the solution would be to give the exact same rights to all civil unions as for marriages, so that traditionalits can't complain about the sacred values of marriage and blablah. I guess that would suit gays as they get their benefits and can still get a non-official religious ceremony if they want.

Actually I was about to post this in another thread (but it closed) so here it is!

It really doesn't bother me so much that gay people are together (I have gay friends), but I don't understand why they are pushing so hard to have marriages recognized. Have civil unions, marriage, live together whatever! Just seems to me that the religious freaks and the homophobes want marriage limited to heterosexuals...fine! Give gays something that is equal (name it whatever you want, but give them the same rights/privledges) But quit pushing for it to be called a "marriage"! Maybe that would make everyone happy. Seems to me like two 6 year old fighting about who gets to sit by the window! I don't really see what the big deal is! :?

 

[BamaFan2989]

So, are you saying there shouldn't be a "marriage" or what? I was just wondering about your reasoning...

 

[CC1]

I'm saying let them have the same rights/privledges as everyone else, just don't call it a marriage! Hell call it bulbafurger for all I care, but don't discriminate against anyone! I can understand why the religious fanatics and the homophobes want to keep marriage "sacred" so just call it something else and there is really nothing anyone else can say about it!

 

[BamaFan2989]

Oh, so I think I see what you are saying.

Are you saying that because you hate when people say that's not marriage! So you are calling it something else, so you are like well it's not marriage but they are together????

*trying to understand....*

 

[Glenn]

Gay people want to be married. Lots of people don't want that, usually saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. So let the gay people have legal "marriages," but don't call it a marriage, and maybe the people who don't want gay people getting married won't mind them being in civil unions with the same benefits as married couples, all the while not actually being married. Does that make sense?

 

[CC1]

exactly Glenn! So many people seem to be against gay marriages mainly because of their religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. Fine, let's allow gay unions but call it something besides "marriage".

Are you saying that because you hate when people say that's not marriage! So you are calling it something else, so you are like well it's not marriage but they are together????

I never said that I hate anything. I'm just trying to come up with a solution that keeps everyone happy...me personally I could care less if it is called a marriage or not! But I look at it this way too...what if people in the US didn't want to allow my wife and I to call our relationship a marriage (since it is interacial)...I would be truly pissed!

 

[Maciamo]

It would suit them if they don't want the same rights to religious ceremony, but what if they do? This may sound out there, but I think there are religious gays who want to go through the religious ceremony as well as just get the legal documentation and benefits.

What I said is that they can have a religious ceremony (at a church, temple or whatever) even without being married on paper. Now that may depends on state laws, but it seems from what Fantt said that some Churches (Unitarian Universalists...) don't mind marrying gay couples.

I am not sure about all state laws in the US, but in Europe it is possible to get a religious ceremony and not be officially married on paper (except in Italy where church marriage are officially recognised, as thus people must choose between civil marriage or religious marriage, but can't have both).
I heard that in Las Vegas church marriages were also officially recognised by the federal government. So what if a Unitarian Universalists minister married a gay couple in Vegas ? Would that be a legal marriage or not. Theoretically yes, because religious organizations have the power to marry people officially, so choosing who they marry if entirely up to them.

Anyway, even if gay marriages were also banned in this case, what about having the religious ceremony (eith the Unitarian Universalists) even if it is not recognised by law, and have the same legal rights by getting a civil union (given that civil union get the same rights as I proposed) ?

 

[Glenn]

True, there are some churches that will give it to them. I had forgotten about that. I was thinking about Christian gays who wanted the religious ceremony (I know, it sounds out there), but I believe that there are some Christian churches that perform marriages for gays anyway. They may be hard to find, but I believe they exist nonetheless. I guess all of that just slipped my mind earlier. :blush::bluush: