It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MillionEyedMask
Originally posted by centurion1211
I'm sorry, but I find the above statement to be quite naive.
Because that is exactly how a democracy is supposed to work. A majority vote rules over a minority vote. There is nothing in the law that says (on issues like this) that it has to be more than a simple majority. And no one gets to say that their pet cause has to win (or lose) by more than a simple majority or it's wrong. Government 101 class, senior year in high school ...
What you're saying is tantamount to saying "Majority rules. Case closed. Deal with it." Unfortunately this is the case. I say unfortunately not because I am against democracy. I'm not. However, it becomes a problem when there is a decision, like this one, that only affects the lives of a minority demographic (somewhere below 10% in this case), but which is voted on by everyone, including those who are stupefyingly ignorant and reliant on archaic justifications for their attitudes.
Originally posted by AnonymousMoose
The decision is basically saying that the term 'marriage' cannot be used in homosexual unions.
I think it leaves the door open for civil unions, and for those civil unions to be able to have the same exact benefits as marriage.
It is a good day for voters, but is also a bad day for a democracy in my opinion, with the majority, and a small majority at 52% taking away rights of a minority.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by xxpigxx
You obviously miss the point.
Were are't arguing that gays have no rights, were arguing that gays have no right to be with each other legally.
I am assuming that issue will come up after today's defeat of the Ban. But still, you can't give any sort of valid argument that would deny a person like you and me, the safe rights given to the rest of the population, regardless of public opinion.
Originally posted by ImzadiDax
Why do you think its special rights? If my partner of 13 years passes away and I am not on the morgage but I have been paying 1/2 you think I should have no rights to stay in my home?
Originally posted by FMLuder
In response to above assertions; my argument comes from the viewpoint of someone with a deep understanding not only of Classical democracy, but of the philosophical and historical background of European civilisation (yes, that includes the USA).
In essence, I represent someone with a far more holistic view of the nature of our system than one who has simply taken a read of the constitution. The notion that this minority issue should be put to an ignorant, unaffected demos (one with, in essence, nothing to lose) is scandalous from a historical and political perspective. Issues that are only relevant and comprehensible to ~1% of the population are NOT, by democratic precedent, to be put to a plebiscite.
It sets a dangerous precedent. In the recent heyday of democracy, it would NEVER have come to pass.
We live in a DEMOCRACY (in the USA's case, a Democratic Republic)... not a MOBOCRACY. There is a difference.
[edit on 26-5-2009 by FMLuder]