Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Mantooth
Pan - (sorry for the quote boxes missing I keep messing them up, its getting late and I'm new at this and all  ) |
No problem.
Quote:
|
I'm not sure I agree with your first point the South has been lost for democrats for decades now I don't think they've had strong support here since (with the exception of Dixiecrat candidates)
|
I think it wasn't just Civil Rights but the anti-gun message from the Dems and Jerry Falwell's introduction of the "Moral Majority", that really helped the GOP in the South. At first Civil Rights may have affected the ultra racists down there, but I think that making sure the black population voting offset that loss. That is one reason, perhaps arguably, the Dems became the Civil Rights party. To offset the losses from perhaps racist groups.
The Dems could not and cannot battle the NRA and what's left of the "Moral Majority", tho. Plus in a state like North Carolina or Kentucky,you had the Dems going hard after their Tobacco industries. So, of course that is going to affect votes.
Quote:
|
Its debatable weather or not MLK had any strong impact on the supreme court, while he did help bring the issue to the forefront, largely the Supreme Court ruled on interpretations of the law and constitution. Which is how the supreme court should function, away from outside influence and public opinion. I would agree however that it was people like MLK that helped put those cases in front of the Supreme Court to begin with. Which is very important.
|
I would argue that MLK perhaps inspired the lawyers to put more into their cases. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be political, but it is and it is very much influenced by public opinion on the major cases it'll hear. (Abortion, for instance.) Up until Reagan, the Dems had loaded the courts. They were more liberal in their interpretations of the Constitution... and perhaps in a vast majority, rightfully so.
Quote:
|
The Civil Rights act was in response to a better educated society but I disagree with you in what way. This discussion started over weather prop 8 should have been decided by a referendum or by representative democracy. Yes education did bring about enlightenment on civil rights but not nearly enough to sway state voters, especially in the South. In this case I would argue that using referendums and waiting for the voters to come around would have taken decades if not generations and it was simply unfair for African Americans to wait that long for a real response. In this case our representatives took control in an environment better suited for an issue like this.
|
Again, I point out, that I have said let the lawyers take it to court and argue.... but instead of sitting there waiting for the courts to rule, go out and educate the voters. That way if Prop 8 is upheld, perhaps you can get a ballot that reverses it passed by having those voters educated.
My problem is that some here will tear down voters for elections they don't like and brag about how the voters were so smart when they get what they want. You can't have it both ways. You believe they are smart or you believe they are mass induced ignorant. It's one or the other... Me, I believe it's all about educating the voters. Don't sit there waiting for something to happen get out and make it happen. So the opposition has more money and better press.... MLK faced the same problems at first. You overcome the odds when you do the work you believe in.
Quote:
|
I think were getting lost in two different discussions here Pan. I agree with you on your last paragraph but again those examples aren't a reflection of referendum voting (to the best of my knowledge, I'm rusty on some of those subjects). It was our elected officials who ultimately made the changes based on laws and the constitution after an issue was brought to the forefront and debated in the public forum. My position is that Prop 8 shouldn't have been decided by a referendum, there were simply too many variables involved (as I've outlined above) and that a better atmosphere for ruling on the issue would have been the State Legislature away from (ideally) the problems encountered through a vote by the people.
|
Elected officials are just that...elected officials. We may think they are out of touch and 99% of the time most are. BUT if the voices are loud enough and the threats real, they will cave in to public pressure to keep their seats, or they and that party lose the seat. (This is well seen by the election in Mass.... although the Dems will spin it in other ways, I'm sure there are some that are definitely looking over their shoulder and thinking about thier direction now.
The problem with a state or the US legislature just making the decision in a case like this is, it's volatile. My guess is that even though the vast majority of Dems in Cali stated support and said all the right things, they truly didn't want to touch this issue. If they had wanted to pass it they would have long before now. They wanted to be able to blame the people.
Quote:
|
Sometimes even the hardest of work and best intentions aren't enough to make the changes needed quickly enough. Again I think its unfair for homosexuals to have to wait out a drastic change by the public (generations?) before their rights are granted. Sure the supreme court or congress might rule the against them but I think the ruling will not only come quicker but be backed up by a much more sound opinion.
|
Personally, I think it's a crime to not let people marry whomever they are in love with. But, the majority that voted, at least in Cali. don't agree with me. Blacks had to wait generations... I am in no way saying it is fair, because it isn't. However, I don't see this lasting generations, maybe a couple of elections. It all depends on if people get out there and start educating and demonstrating and making their voice heard for a just cause. Sitting back degrading voters and waiting for the courts to do something, will prolong this.
Look, 10 years ago this would never even be a thought for anyone to even talk about. Now, it's a reality that is very close. I have no question it would not take much to change enough voters minds to vote to overturn prop 8. It may take an election or 2 but, if enough people do the footwork and do what needs to be done (petitions, sit ins, PEACEFUL demonstrations, debates, parades, fundraisers, the need for those that support the issue to go out and vote...etc), it'll be overturned by the voters.
Again, that beats just sitting there bitching about the voters and waiting for the courts to decide.
Quote:
|
Anyway I'm enjoying your input on this, its a nice change of pace to have a rational discussion on this issue for a change. You seem like a very passionate person the world needs more people like that.
|
Thank you. It's a strong issue that I support. I just disagree with how some would rather sit and bitch and wait for something than to go out and show their support. I think that shows weakness and no conviction for the issue. "Let someone else do all the work, I'll watch and bitch or celebrate... but I don't want to do anything otherwise."
I think that is the problem as a whole in this nation. Everyone wants to bitch, no one wants to do anything. They'd rather just have a ballot and vote or have the city/state/fed vote and then bitch or praise afterward.
Our country is founded NOT just on voting but by demonstrating and being able to speak out. If we do not do that, if we just sit back and watch and complain..... then our votes don't matter because we lost those rights by attrition. And once those rights are gone, the government will decide what we vote for and eventually we'll lose even that.