The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[JakeStarkey]

"Tyranny of the Majority" is an oxymoron. Tyranny is a form of rule of a cruel and oppressive absolute ruler....not by a majority .... There are cultural biases that affect whole societies but these also affect courts. Where were the courts when the Constitution allowed slavery? How wise was the Supreme Court in that era?

That is false. You are using a narrow definition of the word tyranny. The definition also includes a general oppressive rule.
Tyranny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others

If 51 percent of the people vote the other 49 percent as slaves you have a tyranny of the majority because that majority is oppressing the minority. That concept is NOT an oxymoron but rather the central theme in our government. We strive to have a government that is ruled by the people but tempered to ensure that the people are not tyrannizing the minority.

It is obvious that our record is not spotless here with slavery and women a glaring black eye in that goal yet here we are with both of those rectified. We are proof IMHO that such a system is quite effective.

James Madison was certainly well aware of the tyranny of the majority.

That is why democracy fails in the ME and succeeds, most of the time, in the USA. The Bill of Rights protects the minority against tyranny of the majority.

And, yes, ACA was passed by constitutional, electoral process and opined constitutional by SCOTUS.

 

[FA_Q2]

"Tyranny of the Majority" is an oxymoron. Tyranny is a form of rule of a cruel and oppressive absolute ruler....not by a majority .... There are cultural biases that affect whole societies but these also affect courts. Where were the courts when the Constitution allowed slavery? How wise was the Supreme Court in that era?

That is false. You are using a narrow definition of the word tyranny. The definition also includes a general oppressive rule.
Tyranny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others

If 51 percent of the people vote the other 49 percent as slaves you have a tyranny of the majority because that majority is oppressing the minority. That concept is NOT an oxymoron but rather the central theme in our government. We strive to have a government that is ruled by the people but tempered to ensure that the people are not tyrannizing the minority.

It is obvious that our record is not spotless here with slavery and women a glaring black eye in that goal yet here we are with both of those rectified. We are proof IMHO that such a system is quite effective.

James Madison was certainly well aware of the tyranny of the majority.

That is why democracy fails in the ME and succeeds, most of the time, in the USA. The Bill of Rights protects the minority against tyranny of the majority.

And, yes, ACA was passed by constitutional, electoral process and opined constitutional by SCOTUS.

And why, pray tell, did you address this to me? Did I say anything about the ACA in my statement?

 

[dcraelin]

Check out my pictures to see that dangerous saying "We're a Republic not a Democracy" refuted. The framers had to defer to We the People to pass the Constitution. And the people had recently thrown off the yoke of tyranny that the king and his judges had called rule of law.

"Tyranny of the Majority" is an oxymoron. Tyranny is a form of rule of a cruel and oppressive absolute ruler....not by a majority .... There are cultural biases that affect whole societies but these also affect courts. Where were the courts when the Constitution allowed slavery? How wise was the Supreme Court in that era?

The cultural biases now lean more towards gay marriage than away from it. This is why the courts are emotionally ruling against the obvious intent of the 14th amendment.

The people and the government are one in the same, not separate and apart; what government does it does at the behest of the people.

The Framers wisely and correctly avoided direct democracy and opted for a republican form of government because it afforded the people important checks and balances designed to prevent tyranny.

In Congress the people were afforded direct representation in the House and indirect representation in the Senate. The president is elected by an indirect means as well via the Electoral College, representing the people in the many states. And the Federal judiciary is appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate.

But however indirect, each branch of government reflects the will of the people and is subject to their concerns.

Each branch of government plays its role in governing the Nation: Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces those laws, and the Judiciary reviews the laws to determine Constitutionality when the people perceive their civil liberties infringed.*

This is our republican form of government, a brilliant and unique governing construct that allows for the expression of the will of the people while at the same time safeguarding their civil liberties.

*This answers your question concerning women's suffrage.

This post of yours is all sophistry. In reality a government not based on the will of the people is "separate and apart" not one and the same.

Your definition of Republican government is incorrect as my pic-quotes attest. Republics thru-out history have had direct citizen lawmaking. Jefferson said the only true Republic was an area where this could happen. To say the basic form of our government protected minorities when the framers didnt even want a bill of rights is to ignore history.

Nothing you said answers the question of women's suffrage.

 

[dcraelin]

"Tyranny of the Majority" is an oxymoron.

That is false. You are using a narrow definition of the word tyranny. The definition also includes a general oppressive rule.
If 51 percent of the people vote the other 49 percent as slaves you have a tyranny of the majority because that majority is oppressing the minority. That concept is NOT an oxymoron but rather the central theme in our government. We strive to have a government that is ruled by the people but tempered to ensure that the people are not tyrannizing the minority.

It is obvious that our record is not spotless here with slavery and women a glaring black eye in that goal yet here we are with both of those rectified. We are proof IMHO that such a system is quite effective.

James Madison was certainly well aware of the tyranny of the majority.
That is why democracy fails in the ME and succeeds, most of the time, in the USA. The Bill of Rights protects the minority against tyranny of the majority.

Madison turned his back on and was wrong in a lot of what he said in the Federalist papers which weren't widely read at the time anyway. History will show he later joined Jefferson and opposed most of the original framer federalists later in life. Even so, in the Federalist papers he does acknowledge that the will of the majority is the "Republican principal".

The Bill of Rights was opposed by most of the framers, so that fact and the protection of slavery show it is laughable of people to say that the framers were concerned with the rights of minoritys.

 

[Seawytch]

That is false. You are using a narrow definition of the word tyranny. The definition also includes a general oppressive rule.
If 51 percent of the people vote the other 49 percent as slaves you have a tyranny of the majority because that majority is oppressing the minority. That concept is NOT an oxymoron but rather the central theme in our government. We strive to have a government that is ruled by the people but tempered to ensure that the people are not tyrannizing the minority.

It is obvious that our record is not spotless here with slavery and women a glaring black eye in that goal yet here we are with both of those rectified. We are proof IMHO that such a system is quite effective.

James Madison was certainly well aware of the tyranny of the majority.
That is why democracy fails in the ME and succeeds, most of the time, in the USA. The Bill of Rights protects the minority against tyranny of the majority.

Madison turned his back on and was wrong in a lot of what he said in the Federalist papers which weren't widely read at the time anyway. History will show he later joined Jefferson and opposed most of the original framer federalists later in life. Even so, in the Federalist papers he does acknowledge that the will of the majority is the "Republican principal".

The Bill of Rights was opposed by most of the framers, so that fact and the protection of slavery show it is laughable of people to say that the framers were concerned with the rights of minoritys.

Because some didn't have the political will to oppose slavery, they couldn't possibly have written a system that would allow future opposition by those that did have the political will?

 

[dcraelin]

James Madison was certainly well aware of the tyranny of the majority.
That is why democracy fails in the ME and succeeds, most of the time, in the USA. The Bill of Rights protects the minority against tyranny of the majority.

Madison turned his back on and was wrong in a lot of what he said in the Federalist papers which weren't widely read at the time anyway. History will show he later joined Jefferson and opposed most of the original framer federalists later in life. Even so, in the Federalist papers he does acknowledge that the will of the majority is the "Republican principal".

The Bill of Rights was opposed by most of the framers, so that fact and the protection of slavery show it is laughable of people to say that the framers were concerned with the rights of minoritys.

Because some didn't have the political will to oppose slavery, they couldn't possibly have written a system that would allow future opposition by those that did have the political will?

the point is they were not concerned about the rights of minorities when they wrote the constitution.

Madison later in life revealed that some at the convention wanted a king, this only a few years after revolution had thrown off the king. The framers knew that asking for a king would likely go nowhere so they left it out of the Constitution in deference to the will of the people.

 

[Seawytch]

Madison turned his back on and was wrong in a lot of what he said in the Federalist papers which weren't widely read at the time anyway. History will show he later joined Jefferson and opposed most of the original framer federalists later in life. Even so, in the Federalist papers he does acknowledge that the will of the majority is the "Republican principal".

The Bill of Rights was opposed by most of the framers, so that fact and the protection of slavery show it is laughable of people to say that the framers were concerned with the rights of minoritys.

Because some didn't have the political will to oppose slavery, they couldn't possibly have written a system that would allow future opposition by those that did have the political will?

the point is they were not concerned about the rights of minorities when they wrote the constitution.

Madison later in life revealed that some at the convention wanted a king, this only a few years after revolution had thrown off the king. The framers knew that asking for a king would likely go nowhere so they left it out of the Constitution in deference to the will of the people.

Or maybe their definition of a minority was different then than it is now. When they wrote the Constitution, many didn't consider blacks to be human. They had a lot of work to do to even reach minority status.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Madison turned his back on and was wrong in a lot of what he said in the Federalist papers which weren't widely read at the time anyway. History will show he later joined Jefferson and opposed most of the original framer federalists later in life. Even so, in the Federalist papers he does acknowledge that the will of the majority is the "Republican principal".

The Bill of Rights was opposed by most of the framers, so that fact and the protection of slavery show it is laughable of people to say that the framers were concerned with the rights of minoritys.

Because some didn't have the political will to oppose slavery, they couldn't possibly have written a system that would allow future opposition by those that did have the political will?

the point is they were not concerned about the rights of minorities when they wrote the constitution.

Madison later in life revealed that some at the convention wanted a king, this only a few years after revolution had thrown off the king. The framers knew that asking for a king would likely go nowhere so they left it out of the Constitution in deference to the will of the people.

You still don’t understand.

The issue concerns the consistent application of the Constitution’s principles to all persons.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute; government may place reasonable restrictions on our rights provided those restrictions are rationally based, pursue a legitimate legislative end, and are predicated on facts and evidence. Whether those adversely effected by a given restriction constitute a minority or not is irrelevant.

With regard to same-sex couples, therefore, laws prohibiting them from accessing marriage law are not rationally based, do not seek a legitimate legislative end, and are not predicated on facts or evidence – consequently such measures are invalidated by the courts as a violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[ROLAND]

The only problem I could think of is confusion in developmenting child Perhaps the young individual is introduced into something at an early age (that could adversly react to thier adult belief structure of household or individual constitutions) Thats why appropriate behavior should not be exibited tward children,.. what if a parent potraits homosexuality as ok in a group of children Then later in life those thought patterns develope into illogical behavior or violence not to mention If given unto a bullied child in societies eyes this could play int violence social belittling shame an guilt It took me a long time to figure out its OK to be gay Not to say that a person might not want to,,. Instances of political or monitary gains could develope into an Damaged family relationship or The outher side is some persons thru experimentation might find thats Thier rainbow in Life,

 

[Silhouette]

If conservatives are tired of being sued and dragged into yet another court battle, there’s a simple solution: stop taking action to violate the civil liberties of your fellow Americans.

That right there is the type of litigious blackmail I've been referring to that is causing the civil rights of 7 million CA voters to be extinguished. This blackmail is herding powerful oligarchies and judges into "giving the gays access to anything they want OR ELSE"

However, in June of this year, the US Supreme Court struck down gay marriage as a "right" by saying states had the constitutionally-protected right to consensus on it. The Court said instead of "gay marriage is legal across the 50 states" said instead, it was merely "allowed" "in some states".

So anyone afraid of a lawsuit for failing to bow to the Rainbow Reicht's pressure tactics can simply cite the DOMA case and rest with ease that their opinions and feelings about mainstreaming this particular deviant sexual BEHAVIOR are protected by the US Constitution.

In fact, some conservative activists would be wise to welcome gays suing them as to these points just so gays bullying straights can come to the media limelight and be exposed as the blackmail/extortion it actually is.

Our children are at stake here. Stand your ground with a smile and a high definition camera to catch all the highlights of that epic battle.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If conservatives are tired of being sued and dragged into yet another court battle, there’s a simple solution: stop taking action to violate the civil liberties of your fellow Americans.

That right there is the type of litigious blackmail I've been referring to that is causing the civil rights of 7 million CA voters to be extinguished. This blackmail is herding powerful oligarchies and judges into "giving the gays access to anything they want OR ELSE"

However, in June of this year, the US Supreme Court struck down gay marriage as a "right" by saying states had the constitutionally-protected right to consensus on it. The Court said instead of "gay marriage is legal across the 50 states" said instead, it was merely "allowed" "in some states".

So anyone afraid of a lawsuit for failing to bow to the Rainbow Reicht's pressure tactics can simply cite the DOMA case and rest with ease that their opinions and feelings about mainstreaming this particular deviant sexual BEHAVIOR are protected by the US Constitution.

In fact, some conservative activists would be wise to welcome gays suing them as to these points just so gays bullying straights can come to the media limelight and be exposed as the blackmail/extortion it actually is.

Our children are at stake here. Stand your ground with a smile and a high definition camera to catch all the highlights of that epic battle.

Ignorant hyperbolic nonsense and demagoguery – there is no evidence children are ‘at risk.’

And this is one of many reasons why conservatives continue to lose in court when they seek to deny Americans their civil liberties, they’re motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons they fear, absent any evidence or facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Madison turned his back on and was wrong in a lot of what he said in the Federalist papers which weren't widely read at the time anyway. History will show he later joined Jefferson and opposed most of the original framer federalists later in life. Even so, in the Federalist papers he does acknowledge that the will of the majority is the "Republican principal".

The Bill of Rights was opposed by most of the framers, so that fact and the protection of slavery show it is laughable of people to say that the framers were concerned with the rights of minoritys.

Because some didn't have the political will to oppose slavery, they couldn't possibly have written a system that would allow future opposition by those that did have the political will?

the point is they were not concerned about the rights of minorities when they wrote the constitution.

Madison later in life revealed that some at the convention wanted a king, this only a few years after revolution had thrown off the king. The framers knew that asking for a king would likely go nowhere so they left it out of the Constitution in deference to the will of the people.

We have some real revisionist suggestion here without any evidence.

This should help educate you. Tyranny Of A Majority - A James Madison View

Tyranny Of A Majority - A James Madison View

"Our 4th President, Father of the Constitution and architect of the Bill of Rights, may have foreseen the current push by a religious minority to use majoritarian devices in Congress to tyrannize the rest of the country. He must have feared it when he wrote Thomas Jefferson in France from the Continental Congress on October 24, 1787. After recognizing the need for a majority in routine votes, he asked when "a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?"

 

[dcraelin]

You still don’t understand.

The issue concerns the consistent application of the Constitution’s principles to all persons.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute; government may place reasonable restrictions on our rights provided those restrictions are rationally based, pursue a legitimate legislative end, and are predicated on facts and evidence. Whether those adversely effected by a given restriction constitute a minority or not is irrelevant.

With regard to same-sex couples, therefore, laws prohibiting them from accessing marriage law are not rationally based, do not seek a legitimate legislative end, and are not predicated on facts or evidence – consequently such measures are invalidated by the courts as a violation of the 14th Amendment.

it is you that don't understand.

Who determines "legitimate legislative ends"??? That is the heart of the question. In a Republic, the people decide.
Without that you are left with "might makes right", and though-out history courts have been tools of the aristocracy. We rejected an aristocracy.

Marriage is a left-over of the church-state of England. It really only has stare decisis existence in our law. Rationality would say that
it is self-defined thru years of use as a union between a man and a woman. Rationality would say the 14th amendment addressed the inequality due to race, not gender issues, as proven by the need for the 19th amendment.

 

[dcraelin]

We have some real revisionist suggestion here without any evidence.

This should help educate you. Tyranny Of A Majority - A James Madison View

Tyranny Of A Majority - A James Madison View

"Our 4th President, Father of the Constitution and architect of the Bill of Rights, may have foreseen the current push by a religious minority to use majoritarian devices in Congress to tyrannize the rest of the country. He must have feared it when he wrote Thomas Jefferson in France from the Continental Congress on October 24, 1787. After recognizing the need for a majority in routine votes, he asked when "a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?"

It is not revisionist history, check the history books. Many have wrote on the "Madison problem" as his later alliance with Jefferson does not seem to mesh with some of the drivel written in the Federalist Papers.

Jeffersons reply to Madisons letter you have not provided but one of my pictures has a quote from Jefferson that shows his view of rights and the will of the Majority.

I don't believe Madison ever used the idiotic phrase "Tyranny of the Majority" either.

 

[Seawytch]

If conservatives are tired of being sued and dragged into yet another court battle, there’s a simple solution: stop taking action to violate the civil liberties of your fellow Americans.

That right there is the type of litigious blackmail I've been referring to that is causing the civil rights of 7 million CA voters to be extinguished. This blackmail is herding powerful oligarchies and judges into "giving the gays access to anything they want OR ELSE"

However, in June of this year, the US Supreme Court struck down gay marriage as a "right" by saying states had the constitutionally-protected right to consensus on it. The Court said instead of "gay marriage is legal across the 50 states" said instead, it was merely "allowed" "in some states".

So anyone afraid of a lawsuit for failing to bow to the Rainbow Reicht's pressure tactics can simply cite the DOMA case and rest with ease that their opinions and feelings about mainstreaming this particular deviant sexual BEHAVIOR are protected by the US Constitution.

Boy, it just doesn't matter to you how often facts are presented...you just "la la la" right past them don't you? DOMA only applied to those states that have chosen to properly adhere to the 14th Amendment. The anti gay states have not been ruled on yet.

In fact, some conservative activists would be wise to welcome gays suing them as to these points just so gays bullying straights can come to the media limelight and be exposed as the blackmail/extortion it actually is.

Good luck with that, whatever you think that is.

Our children are at stake here. Stand your ground with a smile and a high definition camera to catch all the highlights of that epic battle.

They are? Should I wake up the kids?

 

[Silhouette]

it is you that don't understand.

Who determines "legitimate legislative ends"??? That is the heart of the question. In a Republic, the people decide.
Without that you are left with "might makes right", and though-out history courts have been tools of the aristocracy. We rejected an aristocracy.

Marriage is a left-over of the church-state of England. It really only has stare decisis existence in our law. Rationality would say that
it is self-defined thru years of use as a union between a man and a woman. Rationality would say the 14th amendment addressed the inequality due to race, not gender issues, as proven by the need for the 19th amendment.

The issues of gay marriage aren't even gender, since both genders can already marry. It's a question of the BEHAVIORS of those genders that gay advocates hope legal experts will confuse for an actual cohesive public unit such as "race".

So there is NO provision of the 14th that applies to behaviors. And in any event, the inclusion of just LGBT is incomplete when praying for this special status. At the very least it must include "P" [polyamorous/polygamists]. But in actual practice the types of sexual behaviors outside hetero-monogamous that could group together and petition to be called a "race" or equivalent to, is as limitless as anyone could imagine.

There are hundreds of sexual fetishes documented in psychological literature. A weird behavior, glommed together and self-described/self-diagnosed and calling itself a "race-equivalent" does not a race-equivalent make.

Imagine setting a precedent that behaviors are equal to race? Just scrap the penal and civil codes in each state because "LGBT" is not going to be the last of this trend you hear from, legal-precedent speaking...

 

[Silhouette]

And now the states are beginning the slow march pushing back. They are lining up to say "you're not going to strip OUR state's citizens' rights to consensus on gay marriage like you are trying to do in California..or by forcing it through federal channels like the military. They're drawing a line in the sand and forcing SCOTUS to clarify DOMA.

And they will.....they will...

 

[WorldWatcher]

The issues of gay marriage aren't even gender, since both genders can already marry. It's a question of the BEHAVIORS of those genders that gay advocates hope legal experts will confuse for an actual cohesive public unit such as "race".

The Commonwealth of Virginia didn't it? Colored could marry. Whites could marry. Just not each other. Their argument was that since since coloreds could marry and white could marry, that their was no discrimination.


That worked well in the past.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And now the states are beginning the slow march pushing back. They are lining up to say "you're not going to strip OUR state's citizens' rights to consensus on gay marriage like you are trying to do in California..or by forcing it through federal channels like the military. They're drawing a line in the sand and forcing SCOTUS to clarify DOMA.

And they will.....they will...

Last year we saw Same-sex Civil Marriage win at the ballot box in 4 states (Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota) and it one in all 4.

Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois just joined the by passage of the legislatures and Oregon started recognizing SSCM performed out of state.


Anti-SSCM is winning? It's "marching back"?


Sorry, SSCM is expanding and it's the states that are doing it.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Anti-SSCM is winning? It's "marching back"?


Sorry, SSCM is expanding and it's the states that are doing it.


>>>>

...lol...you should change your name from "Worldwatcher" to "Statewatcher". As the states learn the true sedition of what's been going on with this gay marriage thing, especially in California where gay leaders [Leno] and their advocates-in-crime in high places are strong-arming people away from their protected rights to consensus on the matter.

When voters of various states learn that the "you have no choice but to approve gay marriage" state of affairs in California is as seditious as it factually is, well...voters tend to not like to hear the words "you have to or else".

Yes, just change your name to "Statewatcher" because the unchecked momentum of the gay-steamroller is about to hit a rut in the middle of the road. That rut is called "the DOMA Decision".