Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
One could argue that in the beginning there were no laws preventing or promoting gay marriage. While it may not have been taken away, it was never offered on the table like it is today. We are talking about potentially changing the law to fit in a group who is in the infancy of social acceptance. Rules have to be rewriten every once in a while to accomidate evolution (if you want to call it that) of the social circumstance. This is an opportunity for one such rewrite. If society is ready (i.e. enough voting people accept homosexuality), it'll pass. If not, then the supporters suck it up, ragather our efforts and try again tomorrow.
I understand what you are trying to say, but a lot of the time people who are percieved as ignorant or expendant because they are not properly understood. If the though process was better understood, then you could adapt your explaination to better fit what thery might udnerstand. Obviously there are a lot of stupid people out there, but if most people mean well I don't see how we have to ignore peoples opinions. Even stupid people can have good ideas.
|
There is more to it than who has the most votes, will,,,,,,,,,,,
Quote:
<a href="http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/judicial_activism.html">http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/judicial_activism.html</a>
I submit that it is the Family Research Council which has forgotten some essential principles upon which the United States was founded. The principle of democratic self-rule is not absolute. It is limited by the constitution. If, on the other hand, the Family Research Council holds the principle of democratic self-government to be paramount, would they be willing to accept the results of a hypothetical state referendum that bans Christians from exercising their religion? I do not believe so. I believe that they would ask the Supreme Court to overturn the referendum, and hope for the "judicial activists" on the court to commit the high crime and misdemeanor of overthrowing the will of the people. And the Supreme Court would be performing its proper constitutional duty in doing so, <b>just like the Supreme Court was performing its proper constitutional duty when it overturned Colorado's notorious amendment 2, which made gays and lesbians second-class citizens under the law. In the amendment 2 case, not the court assumed powers that it did not have under the constitution, but 53% of the voters in Colorado did.</b>
|