Ìîæåòå ïðîâåðèòü: WMID 322973398779 Redfern

Âñ¸ ÷èñòî, íå îäíîé æàëîá. Ñäåëàí íà óòåðÿííûå äîêóìåíòû. Âñ¸ çàêîííî.
Åñëè íóæíî, òî åñòü ñåðòèôèêàòû åù¸.
Ñòó÷àöî â ëè÷íóþ ïî÷òó íà Âåáìàíè.

Ýòî íå ñïàì. Íå ïèøèòå íà ìîé WMID æàëîáû â àðáèòðàæ Âåáìàíè.

The MA legislature had a chance to say, “We’ll let the people vote on this. Under the MA constitutional procedure, we cannot vote on this – but we can still let the people.” They punted. They voted against democracy.

In one sense: good. This country isn’t a democracy and never has been. I doubt you or I would truly like what the results would be if the USA really were a democracy. No, this is a Republic and it is through our legislatures that the wishes of the People are expressed, with the Courts there to put a stop to the majority running roughshod in all things over the minority. Is our system perfect? Absolutely not. It’s quite messy, contradictory, maddening at times, etc. Look at another recent example: the immigration bill. Many people here, myself included, were quite pleased that a minority of Senators were able to block its passage (for now at least). This was done not by a vote, or even the expressed desire of the People (unless you want to give polls more credibility than conservatives usually do), by by a parliamentary procedure in the rules. Should we be equally outraged by this and condemn those Senators which have blocked “democracy”?

Are we supposed to be proud of our “victory” in Massachusetts, a so-called “victory” that looks an awful lot like defeat for the democratic process? Are we supposed to be proud that the gay community’s leaders would rather force same-sex marriage …

Regards,
Peter H.

To prove your point, ILoveCapitalism, you equate popular vote with legislative process. Is it not true, that this issue in MA was decided by legislative process? By legislative process we determine the standing of murderers. By legislative process we determine the standing of our soldiers in Iraq. And by legislative process MA has determined the issue of gay marriage will not be on their 2008 ballot. Where then is the dictatorship?

Will the GOP finally wake up to the threat from within? I think D’Souza was utterly correct. It’s because of these sick, twisted freaks that we are so reviled in the Muslim world to begin with. Moderate Muslims (of which there were very, very few) have to know that we don’t stand for these things, that’s not our culture. Homosexuality, abortion, etc… – these are things that stand in stark contrast to American values and traditionalism. Once the GOP finally clears itself of RINO and fields a candidate willing to support traditional values, from limiting abortion to reanacting sodomy laws designed to protect the public from perverts, the GOP will regain its footing politically and decimate the Democrat party.

[GP Ed. Note - I nearly "spammed" this comment. But it is important to see this kind of belief stated. Many Americans -- not just conservatives but many liberals -- feel this way for whatever reasons. It is something our community has to grapple with -- and hasn't done a good job doing.]

Take murderers. They’re a group. Hopefully a minority. Popular vote (or legislative process) determined their standing, i.e., that they should be deprived of rights and sent to prison.

Want a more innocent group? Take our soldiers in Iraq. Popular vote (or legislative process) determines their standing, i.e., whether they are adequately funded and whether their work is about to be thrown away in a Cut-and-Run. (Thus, what their prestige – or lack thereof – will be when they come back.)

I could go on. Basically, any conceivable action of government will elevate or denigrate some minority group of people, in some fashion.

A straw man, since this has nothing to do with determining “the standing” of anyone.

We will [know that the people of MA support gay marriage] when the next election happens and enough legislators who lean one way or the other win office.

No John, we still won’t. Because a zillion other issues come into play then. Elections of a representative are rarely about one issue even for a single representative, and never for a whole slate.

The MA legislature had a chance to say, “We’ll let the people vote on this. Under the MA constitutional procedure, we cannot vote on this – but we can still let the people.” They punted. They voted against democracy.

They (and those of us who wanted them to) have now effectively pitted gay rights against voting rights. That is why stupid backlashes like the FMA gain traction. Bad, bad strategy.

Pot, meet kettle.

We are tired of your TIRED inane commentaries, seantard. Dan doesn’t post “the same post” all the time. But on those rare occasions that he does, you are the first one in line to bash him.

Grow up.

Regards,
Peter H.

I actually have mixed feelings on the vote in the Massachusetts legislature which I will address in a subsequent post.

(1) I don’t support SSM and would probably have voted for the proposed referendum as written.

(2) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts as all other states, is not a democracy but a republic. The very existence of initiative proceeses is somewhat bizarre in a republic, yet we have them as a result of self-styled “progressive” political movements a century ago. Frankly, a vote like the one the legislature made is what elections are for. If the people of Massachusetts are this wound-up over gay marriage, then they should vote for representatives that will permit the referendum. If not, then not. “Activist” judiciaries like that of Massachusetts aside, if one supports conservative forms of government certain consequences flow from that, and votes like the one today are such a consequence. If I lived in Massachusetts, I probably would more likely than not vote for conservative loser candidates for the state legislature even though it would likely make no difference.

(3) I really wonder if certain residents of Masschustts like Amherst professor Hadley Arkes of the infamous “First Things” symposium or the “Mass Resistance” kooks will now start advocating the violent overthrow of the Massachusetts state government. To do so, by the way, is potentially a federal criminal offense.

How do you know? We’ll never know, will we? That’s the sad point.

We will when the next election happens and enough legislators who lean one way or the other win office.

And what courts giveth, courts can always taketh away.

Too true, yet historical precedents on civil rights issues are rarely overturned.

The issue is who decides these things.

The People through their elected representatives. We still are a Republic and not a democracy the last time I checked. Since Mass. has ballot initiative, the People have the option of voting out enough state legislators to force a vote. Until that happens, the People have decided.