I realize you're being facetious but, yes, f**k actual democracy. We have never been truly democratic in nature and hopefully won't start now.
Our founding fathers were very wise. They realized that for equality to work you have to remove the tyranny of the majority from the equation. It's far too easy for people en-masse to trample on the rights of those with less power.
Imagine if every time something came up, it only took 51% (in some cases, even less, depending on the amount of division) of people to decide it. It'd be a nightmare.
Democracies must strike a balance between rule of the majority and protection of the minority, or they become tyrannies. Nevermind that there is more than one tyrant; it is a tyranny nonetheless.
If you want to look at an actual democracy, look at ancient Athens. Socrates was put on trial merely for being a social and moral critic, and sentenced to death for "corrupting the minds of youth". Actual democracy is mob rule.
Let's be clear: if all 50 state governments banned gay marriage tomorrow, Congressman Paul would be totally fine with that. That's not a pro- gay marriage stance.
It's a very common refrain among conservatives who don't want gay marriage recognized by the government, but have no valid argument to that effect. So they often say "I don't think government should be involved in marriage whatsoever." What we NEVER see is them putting their policy with their mouth is and PROPOSING to and all government recognition of marriage. That's because conservatives either don't sincerely believe it, or they recognize that it's political suicide. Either way, it's idle bluster.
haha, 4 buries. you are so brainwashed you can't even believe the congressional record where he voted against the ban. why are you against the only anti-war, legalize drugs and gay marriage candidate on the ballot, INCLUDING Obama?
I watched the video. I was referring to exactly what he said, which is that 'government shouldn't be involved whatsoever'. Did you not read my comment?
dirtyfriesFeb 8, 2012Buried
A proud day for people who respect civil rights. Tyranny of the majority will not be tolerated.
dirtyfriesFeb 8, 2012Buried
I realize you're being facetious but, yes, f**k actual democracy. We have never been truly democratic in nature and hopefully won't start now.
Our founding fathers were very wise. They realized that for equality to work you have to remove the tyranny of the majority from the equation. It's far too easy for people en-masse to trample on the rights of those with less power.
Imagine if every time something came up, it only took 51% (in some cases, even less, depending on the amount of division) of people to decide it. It'd be a nightmare.
iceuckFeb 8, 2012Buried
Um, that we can stop being ashamed of ourselves as a state?
salbatrossFeb 8, 2012Buried
Democracies must strike a balance between rule of the majority and protection of the minority, or they become tyrannies. Nevermind that there is more than one tyrant; it is a tyranny nonetheless.
jpurdyFeb 8, 2012Buried
Excellent point.
bdbrFeb 8, 2012Buried
If you want to look at an actual democracy, look at ancient Athens. Socrates was put on trial merely for being a social and moral critic, and sentenced to death for "corrupting the minds of youth". Actual democracy is mob rule.
salbatrossFeb 8, 2012Buried
You still elected Arnold twice...no judge can ever take that away.
...kidding. Kinda.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012Buried
I see too many people cheerleading for direct democracy. They don't seem to realize that the Prop 8 vote was direct democracy.
apokalyps2547Feb 8, 2012Buried
Let's be clear: if all 50 state governments banned gay marriage tomorrow, Congressman Paul would be totally fine with that. That's not a pro- gay marriage stance.
It's a very common refrain among conservatives who don't want gay marriage recognized by the government, but have no valid argument to that effect. So they often say "I don't think government should be involved in marriage whatsoever." What we NEVER see is them putting their policy with their mouth is and PROPOSING to and all government recognition of marriage. That's because conservatives either don't sincerely believe it, or they recognize that it's political suicide. Either way, it's idle bluster.
crom99Feb 8, 2012Buried
http://i.imgur.com/fm57e.jpg
[oligatory /s tag here]
TGRHvWGAFFeb 9, 2012Buried
Wouldn't the disproportionate level of influence from an outside party disqualify the prop8 vote from being an experiment in direct democracy?
salbatrossFeb 8, 2012Buried
It means fire and brimstone and dogs wearing top hats and satin everywhere and the end of all moral order.
Or nothing negative. One or the other.
melthornalFeb 8, 2012Buried
So in other words, you have no lawful explanation and you are purely speaking out of your ass? Well, that settles it.
cbamrFeb 8, 2012Buried
Get Ready To Mince?
darkstar1stFeb 8, 2012Buried
his own words.
skip to 2:05, Stossel, "should gays be allowed to marry? Paul, "Sure!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M
darkstar1stFeb 8, 2012Buried
haha, 4 buries. you are so brainwashed you can't even believe the congressional record where he voted against the ban. why are you against the only anti-war, legalize drugs and gay marriage candidate on the ballot, INCLUDING Obama?
apokalyps2547Feb 8, 2012Buried
I watched the video. I was referring to exactly what he said, which is that 'government shouldn't be involved whatsoever'. Did you not read my comment?
darkstar1stFeb 9, 2012Buried
plz clarify "endorse" and "recognize", what special privileges does the state grant a spouse?
melthornalFeb 8, 2012Buried
Okay, mister obvious troll, I will give you one chance to prove your argument using logic and law only. If you mention religion, even once, you lose.
How is this ruling unlawful?
bmcgeeFeb 8, 2012Buried
Whose definition of marriage are you using? The bible's?
http://www.bilerico.com/2011/10/marriage_according_to_the_bible.php