slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Just wanted to say congrats to all the homosexual members whose marriages can now be respected for what they are!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Proposition 8 Squashed
- Thread starter slowfiveoh
- Start date
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Off-topic but I do agree. Prop 8 was obviously in conflict with the language of the California constitution.
Was it a constitutional change or simply a law? I was under the impression it was an amendment to their constitution.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Proposition 8 was a popular referendum, which carries an authority greater than acts of legislature but lower than the constitution itself.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
It is also a great example of how sometimes the majority is just plain wrong and rights need to be protected over what democratic mob wants. Something I like to bring up to 'democrats' or 'republicans' who cry for things to be done by popular vote. There is tyranny in mob rule.
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Stanley
Regular Member
Most (in my experience) people aren't even aware that we are a republic and/or aware unaware of the difference between a republic and a democracy...
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I have mixed feelings about this. I understand Jefferson's viewpoint that a pure republic ought to be as direct a democracy as possible, but I also understand the failings of groupthink.
Too tired to add more now.
Social Lounge.
Hmm, I thought topics were still supposed to be somewhat related to guns, but I guess that is no longer (or never actually was) the case.
Carry on.
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
There is the same tyranny in the rule of the majority, the "tyranny of the majority." This mention, here, is not the first realization of the tyranny of the majority.
Dreamer
Regular Member
"Tyranny of the Majority" is really a false term. The "majority" is generally lead by a tiny, VERY LOUD and VERY VISIBLE minority, like sheep being herded by a collie.
So even "tyranny of the majority" in a "democratic" referendum vote is actually STILL a tiny minority exerting their power over the majority.
"Rule", in ANY application, ALWAYS comes down to a tiny minority exerting power over others. It's just that some versions of "rulership" have the subtle veneer of "popular choice" or "mob rule", because TPTB know if they give us the APPEARANCE of participating in our own serfdom, we won't start gathering pitchforks, torches and pots full of tar...
Contract law is NOT a "sacrament", and excluding ANY person of sound mind and body from engaging in ANY form of contractual agreement is a slippery slope. It didn't work in Germany in the 30's and 40s, and putting limitations on the eligibility to engage in entering into contracts on people because of race, religion, or lifestyle today is no less egregious a violation of fundamental human rights...
So even "tyranny of the majority" in a "democratic" referendum vote is actually STILL a tiny minority exerting their power over the majority.
"Rule", in ANY application, ALWAYS comes down to a tiny minority exerting power over others. It's just that some versions of "rulership" have the subtle veneer of "popular choice" or "mob rule", because TPTB know if they give us the APPEARANCE of participating in our own serfdom, we won't start gathering pitchforks, torches and pots full of tar...
Contract law is NOT a "sacrament", and excluding ANY person of sound mind and body from engaging in ANY form of contractual agreement is a slippery slope. It didn't work in Germany in the 30's and 40s, and putting limitations on the eligibility to engage in entering into contracts on people because of race, religion, or lifestyle today is no less egregious a violation of fundamental human rights...
Last edited:
Q-Tip
Regular Member
Was opening this can of worms really necessary?
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
Athenian democracy randomness
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=athenian+randomness+democracy 4,230,000 hits Maybe one will interrupt your dream fantasy.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
So far, it's just a can of low-key discussion.
Is it really necessary for anybody to bring worms? No, but someone probably will.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
"Can of worms"?
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness combined with no Constitutional provision to define marriage granted to the government makes the ruling pretty easy to be blunt.
Its always nice to cheer when 2nd Amendment liberties are restored, but not so when it comes to a liberal court actually ruling in a Constitutional manner?
Amazing.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
There are benefits to democratic aspect Jefferson promoted especially locally. But there should be a basis of fundamental human rights that trump what the "majority" want.
Hmm, I thought topics were still supposed to be somewhat related to guns, but I guess that is no longer (or never actually was) the case.
Carry on.
John Pierce's first post when introducing the Social Lounge was about the movie "Kick Ass". I think that set the tone for Social Lounge.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Some good points Dreamer. It's the problem I have with so called Democracy too, even in the most popular and attended to elections it's still a minority that is "ruling". That is why I won't vote for the lesser of two evils why add to the illusion of being governed by consent. I won't give them my consent.
Only because of who was being offended.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Agreed. But how to establish such rights? How to ensure them? How to allow their expansion with time, while preventing their curtailment due to fears of "omg cars and automatic wepponz"?
This is where the real challenge is. This is the core of the government question.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
True, but STILL it was Constitutional lol...