Iowa SC Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[Trenitay]

Hey, that's what I think too!

 

Why is this thread showing a list of posts instead of the posts themselves?

[Gfted1]

Why is this thread showing a list of posts instead of the posts themselves?

 

Because you accidentally clicked something under the "Options" tab. (Top right corner, only viewable from within a thread.)

[kirottu]

 

"I approve Iowa. I approve."

[Trenitay]

Why is this thread showing a list of posts instead of the posts themselves?

 

Because you accidentally clicked something under the "Options" tab. (Top right corner, only viewable from within a thread.)

 

I'm not even able to access the options menu from my phone. And now it's happening in all the threads.

[Aristes]

The Ballot initiative, once thought to be the true vehicle of progressive politics, is fundamentally flawed. We have a legislature. We have a governor. We have a judiciary. If those three branches perform their duties, then we don't need to place initiatives on the ballots. The only thing that a ballot initiative does is allow for the speedy enactment of the people's will. However, there is a good reason to delay, through the normal legislative, executive, and judicial process, the will of the people. First of all, the people might have a change in heart once they've learned more information. There is also the fact that ballot intiatives are misleading and voters often don't read all of the pertinent facts in order to discern the truth or evaluate the impact. Finally, although this list is in no way exhaustive, the people, at any particular moment are fickle. As flawed as our republic was, it was made worse by the ballot initiative. And it has not always been used to further progressive goals. The irony. As Abigail Adams might say, the serpent warmed at the bossom of progressives has poisoned them. The people will generally gavitate towards the good over time, but they vacilate along the way.

 

There is little doubt that the ban on gay marriage in California is wrong minded, but I seriously doubt there would have been a ban in the first place if it were left to the three branches of government. There simply wasn't enough depth of feeling among the voters to pressure the legislature and governor. Even if the legislature and governor had enacted it, the SC could have thrown out the law, which is far more appropriate than overturning the will of the people.

 

That's the irony on my side. I have no care about Gay marriage and think it should be allowed. however, once the people have directly voted on the issue, which is to say we know their will, then we're forced to adhere to it. We're also forced to turn the judiciary against the explicit will of the people. In California, that led to a constitutional amendment. If the will of the people, in a snapshot of time, can change the constitution in a single election by a simple majority, there's something wrong with your constitution, not the people.

 

The people have had ample opportunity to express and demand their will in the US republic without a ballot initiative. Sure, we can argue that the desires of the people have been wrongminded from time to time, but the republic has been responsive to their will. The very constitution has been amended. Why should we take a strong representative democracy and exacerbate the gravest danger of all democratic governments -- caprice and short lived extremist sentiments? In fact, I think the movements to ban gay would would have been altogether brief indeed but for the ballot intiative in most states.

 

California has a lot of conservative undercurrents and only folks who have never lived here think the state is "liberal." It's got quite a mix. However, while I think krezak is often misguided in terms of American politics, I know most Americans are misguided about American politics and people in general are misguided about politics in general and so I'm rarely irritated or angry at his posts. Confused or surprised from time to time, to be sure, but rarely actually irritated or angry.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

That's right, who do those people think they're are, voting their views like that.

 

You're right! We should leave civil rights issues to the popular vote - nothing bad could happen, right?

[Meshugger]

That's right, who do those people think they're are, voting their views like that. Government should be left to professional politicians and preferably unelected judges, who know what they're doing.

 

That's what a constitutional court is for. When the citizens are getting silly and trying to do forbid other citizens to enjoy the same silliness, then the courts and the judges step in and say: "Nu-uh!", and everything is back in order. Being silly, that is.

[taks]

That's right, who do those people think they're are, voting their views like that. Government should be left to professional politicians and preferably unelected judges, who know what they're doing.

actually, the problem with easy ballot initiatives is that you end up with mob rules. since they can put things into the constitution very easily (that is the case in CA, correct?), it becomes a mess of whatever the current majority wants. ultimately, such an ability is as oppressive as any tyranny (tyranny of the majority).

 

there is a distinct reason we are a republic, not a democracy.

 

taks

[Wrath of Dagon]

Silly according to whom? What we have in this country is tyranny of the courts.

 

Edit: A state can not pass a law that contradicts the federal constitution, thus states can practice direct democracy without danger of mob rule.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[taks]

Silly according to whom? What we have in this country is tyranny of the courts.

yes, we have that, too, but not in all states or regions.

 

Edit: A state can not pass a law that contradicts the federal constitution, thus states can practice direct democracy without danger of mob rule.

i'm not sure how you get that... overall, yes because the ultimate document is federal, but the US constitution actually leaves most of the power to the states themselves, particularly when it comes to issues such as this one. there's plenty of mob rule going on, and CA's ballot initiative is a perfect example. just because you may agree with (not that you do or don't) the "rule" doesn't make it any less of a tyrannical situation. the easy solution is to simply make it hard to change the state constitution. we tried in CO to make it harder than it already is, but the measure failed. as a result, we still end up with a dozen or so every election cycle, though most get shot down from what i understand.

 

right or wrong is not my point, btw. i think ALL marriage laws are silly.

 

taks

[Wrath of Dagon]

How is it a tyranical situation, unless you believe majority rule is automatically tyrannical. Fundamental rights are protected by the Bill of Rights in the federal constitution, which is very hard to change, as it should be. Most state constitutions are relatively easy to change, and that's because there's the safeguard of the US constitution.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hurlshort]

Any majority rule that strips rights away from a minority group is tyrannical. Gay couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples in California or in the US. It is as simple as that. All the legal mumbo jumbo is just a smoke screen so people don't have to address the real issue.

[Aristes]

Krezak has a better excuse. taks didn't create the notion that the random rule of the mob is a tyranny in and of itself. The simple fact is, the unchecked rule of the majority is a great evil. The crafters of the Constitution worked hardest to combat the evil of the unchecked majority simply because the evils of aristocracy and monarchy were well established and experienced most recently by the people. ...And the majority can enact its will in a representative democracy, only it takes a little longer. The US Constitution should be neither an excuse to create a flawed state contitution nor an apology for one once created. Ballot initiatives allow the exact same sort of unbridled emotional outpouring of popular caprice that the crafters of the Constitution fought hard to prevent. That each happens at a state level in no way diminishes the problem for each state.

[Hurlshort]

That has nothing to do with gay marriage, but we've already argued this ad nauseam.

[Wrath of Dagon]

A tyrant is a dictator who rules without regard to popular opinion. Thus there can be no such thing as democratic tyranny. The danger of direct democracy is mob rule, not tyranny. There is no mob rule in referendums, since things are not decided in the passion of a moment, but take a long time and are subject to normal democratic debate. Also as I already explained, the rule of the majority is not unchecked, and the majority of state costitutions are not flawed just because they can be easily amended. A state constitution does not serve the same function as the federal one, most state constitutions are huge and deal with everything including the kitchen sink.

[taks]

That has nothing to do with gay marriage, but we've already argued this ad nauseam.

it does in the sense that the CA constitution is the reason, oddly enough, that gay marriage is banned there, but not in iowa. they made it easy for the majority to run roughshod over everyone.

 

the whole concept of state sanctioned marriage has nothing to do with "rights," anyway. marriage is a privilege that the state has chosen to regulate in some fashion. if it were a true right, being married would confer no special treatment over any other people, married or otherwise, because everyone has the same rights. we know, of course, that this is not how "rights" are treated by the government, nor the world at large.

 

taks

[alanschu]

A tyrant is a dictator who rules without regard to popular opinion. Thus there can be no such thing as democratic tyranny.

 

Tryannies do not require tyrants. Tyrannies of the majority are restricted to democracies.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Edited April 8, 2009 by alanschu

[taks]

A tyrant is a dictator who rules without regard to popular opinion. Thus there can be no such thing as democratic tyranny.

wow, you really don't understand this. just look up the first definition of tyranny dictionary.com: arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

 

it doesn't require a single person for a tyranny to exist, just an unrestrained exercise of power, i.e., the majority exerting their power over the minority.

 

The danger of direct democracy is mob rule, not tyranny.

mob rule is tyranny, by definition.

 

given you don't even understand the basic premise of your statements, nothing else you said is worth commenting on.

 

taks

[alanschu]

Yuppers.

Edited April 8, 2009 by alanschu

[Aristes]

Yes, but as a term, the idea that the majority may become a tyrant is rather old and has some cache among educated folks. Take the all powerful wikipedia as a source, since that will probably take the place of real research for you:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

 

As far as the term "tyrant," it did not carry the same bad connotations back in the day. You know, when the folks first started using the word. Once again, the ever popular wikipedia removes our obligation to think, read, or research.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant

 

The point is, the majority can be as oppresive towards any group as a small group or an individual.

 

Since the idea that the majority can form a tyranny is really a common concept, using semantics to argue against it is particularly hollow. And any tool that a group uses to oppress a group is tyrannical.

 

We're not really talking strict definitions of tyranny are we? I mean, we're talking about the process of ballot initiatives. That is just plain flawed.

[taks]

I mean, we're talking about the process of ballot initiatives. That is just plain flawed.

yes, it is.

 

i don't agree that most state constitutions are easy to change. obviously CA's is, CO's, OTOH, is not nearly as easy. i don't know about others, but i've never heard the complaint as much as i do regarding CA's.

 

taks

[Aristes]

Well, there are more of us for one thing. ...But Florida has a large population but it has a much harder amendment process. Nevada has a two prongged approach and it's actually quite difficult to amend the consitution.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The danger of direct democracy is mob rule, not tyranny.

 

Mob rule is tyrannical.

 

There is no mob rule in referendums, since things are not decided in the passion of a moment, but take a long time and are subject to normal democratic debate.

 

Lulz. You obviously have not seen the campaigning that goes into many of these ballot initiatives.

 

...the rule of the majority is not unchecked...

 

Yeah, that's what happened in this case - so why the long face?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

A state can not pass a law that contradicts the federal constitution, thus states can practice direct democracy without danger of mob rule.

 

Actually a state can, it will just be stuck down.

[Pidesco]

The best rulers Portugal ever had were tyrants in the modern sense of the word, and were better rulers for it.