A Fair Comprimise

[Stuco]

Since there is much heated debate on weather or not homosexuels should be awarded marrige I was wondering If we could come to a comprimise. Seeing that democracy is what our country was based on and keeping with that tradition Im wondering who could be aginst a vote that is a state vote in wich if the majority wins the state would be for homosexual marriage and allow it or the state would be aginst it and not allow it. This seems fair to me as it keeps with what the four fathers set fourth in the constitution. This way everyone has a place to live where they can keep there ideals and be happy.

 

[TooCurious]

Civil liberties should not be put to a vote.

 

[Ampoliros]

No - just because the majority wishes it doesn't mean you get to deny people's rights. Especially not for irrational and silly reasons.

The constitution is there to guarantee our rights no matter what group we belong to. The majority doesn't always win, if they're wrong about what they do. If, say, 99% of the population voted to enslave the other 1%, it would certainly be the 'will of the majority'. But it wouldn't be right, and it wouldn't be constitutional.

 

[wanderingone]

Who voted to allow heterosexuals to marry?

 

[hernyaccent]

No. There is no way I trust the people of this country to make choices in my life. The majority don't share my moral views or experiences.

 

[StromRider]

You define it as a fair compromise because you believe such a vote would go the way you want in most if not all states.

As others have stated, civil rights should not be put to a vote.

Isn't part of a democracy supposed to be about protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority?

And of course, this democracy stuff is way overrated anyway - see 2000 presidential election.

 

[Vedant]

If the same idea was used for handicapped people, this would be a problem, wouldn't it?

The statement is reminiscent of classic conservatives who wanted strong state power and weak federal power. Times have changed very much as the US at best has distinct regional mindsets that cross state borders and not distinct state mindsets that might have been more prevalent during colonial times.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

No - just because the majority wishes it doesn't mean you get to deny people's rights. Especially not for irrational and silly reasons.

The constitution is there to guarantee our rights no matter what group we belong to. The majority doesn't always win, if they're wrong about what they do. If, say, 99% of the population voted to enslave the other 1%, it would certainly be the 'will of the majority'. But it wouldn't be right, and it wouldn't be constitutional.

People's rights are denied all the time, and this isn't a right but a desired right.

My rights are denied all of the time. My CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS, the ones guaranteed to me by the Constitutiton, are denied for fearing of breaking someone else's "right to not be offended", when I'm offended all of the freakin' time. What is a right? How do *you* decide?


"No - just because the majority wishes it doesn't mean you get to deny people's rights."

I want to get especially close in on this one: there is a difference between denying people rights and denying people THEIR rights. The first is refusing to give them a right that they desire but do not have, the second is refusing them a right that they have.




But tell me, if you hold to: "No - just because the majority wishes it doesn't mean you get to deny people's rights. Especially not for irrational and silly reasons...The constitution is there to guarantee our rights no matter what group we belong to.", then how can you push for homosexual marriage and deny incestual marriage, whether it's homosexual or heterosexual? (I am, of course, just supposing that you do because I haven't met a person yet who was for homosexual marriage and for incestual marriage).

1) If it's a matter of rights and everyone's rights, no matter what group, then you can't deny it to incestual couples.
2) If it's a matter of children, you still can't deny it. First, there is the matter that homosexual couples don't procreate BUT can get sperm donors (and so can incestual couples, both heterosexual and homosexual).

So... do you still hold to "The constitution is there to guarantee our rights no matter what group we belong to"?

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

You define it as a fair compromise because you believe such a vote would go the way you want in most if not all states.

As others have stated, civil rights should not be put to a vote.

Isn't part of a democracy supposed to be about protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority?

And of course, this democracy stuff is way overrated anyway - see 2000 presidential election.

No, it's because he beleives in states rights, as I do. I voted "not sure" on this one, but the matter of leaving it to the states is not a matter of you think the states will do what you want them to. Let me put it to you like this: a state is not a province. We are the UNITED STATES. Outside of the U.S. Maine is a province in France, and France is a State. We are still a Confederation because we still have states.

 

[wanderingone]

No, it's because he beleives in states rights, as I do. I voted "not sure" on this one, but the matter of leaving it to the states is not a matter of you think the states will do what you want them to. Let me put it to you like this: a state is not a province. We are the UNITED STATES. Outside of the U.S. Maine is a province in France, and France is a State. We are still a Confederation because we still have states.

Historically we have apparently found states don't do well on civil rights and turn to federal regulation to avoid pockets of human treachery against other humans. I used to agree to some extent on states rights, however realizing it took the feds to guarantee the rights of people like my husband and myself to marry I think the states rights argument doesn't cut it when it comes to insuring the rights of individuals in every state to their individual freedoms.

 

[Stuco]

Well all that being said does anyone have a better idea that will make both partys at least content and I mean BOTH partys.

 

[MewtwoX]

Rights are not put to a vote.

Let's imagine America had a mjority population of Atheists.

Would you approve of a state-by-state vote over whether Christianity should be outlawed?

No. It's ridiculous. Being Christian is a right granted to the person. You cannot decide a right by a vote.

Majority Rules.
Minority Rights.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Historically we have apparently found states don't do well on civil rights and turn to federal regulation to avoid pockets of human treachery against other humans. I used to agree to some extent on states rights, however realizing it took the feds to guarantee the rights of people like my husband and myself to marry I think the states rights argument doesn't cut it when it comes to insuring the rights of individuals in every state to their individual freedoms.

You are assuming that when the states "don't do well" the federal government will. I can think of multiple examples where this is most certainly wrong.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Rights are not put to a vote.

Let's imagine America had a mjority population of Atheists.

Would you approve of a state-by-state vote over whether Christianity should be outlawed?

No. It's ridiculous. Being Christian is a right granted to the person. You cannot decide a right by a vote.

Majority Rules.
Minority Rights.

As I say, there is a difference between denying someone a right and denying someone their right.

 

[MewtwoX]

Stuco, I would suggest a set of discussions among lawmakers, lawers, judges and political philosophers over Same-Sex Marriage and procedural justice in a Democratic society.

 

[Stuco]

Rights are not put to a vote.

Let's imagine America had a mjority population of Atheists.

Would you approve of a state-by-state vote over whether Christianity should be outlawed?

No. It's ridiculous. Being Christian is a right granted to the person. You cannot decide a right by a vote.

Majority Rules.
Minority Rights.

If it is what the majority wants sobeit. That is what the country was created for. To let the Majority rule. Allthough with freedom of religon being in the constitution I dont see this happening any time soon. The right to marry though is not in the constitution. It is not a right it is a privlege.

 

[MewtwoX]

As I say, there is a difference between denying someone a right and denying someone their right.

Rights can be denied when it is instrumental for proper working of a democratic society. Also when the rights denial in question is essential for the functioning of Fundamental Justice.

That's all.

 

[MewtwoX]

If it is what the majority wants sobeit. That is what the country was created for. To let the Majority rule. Allthough with freedom of religon being in the constitution I dont see this happening any time soon. The right to marry though is not in the constitution. It is not a right it is a privlege.

No, Democracies work on the basis of Majority Rule and Minority Rights. Without one, you have a tyranny of the majority and a system that is known as a pure democracy.

America isn't a pure democracy. It's a Constitutional Democracy, which is why it has the constitution. Rights are rarely explicitly stated in the Constitution, and interpretation of the fundamental rights is integral to figure out what can be considered protected by the Constitution and what isn't.

 

[SimplyMe]

If it is what the majority wants sobeit. That is what the country was created for. To let the Majority rule. Allthough with freedom of religon being in the constitution I dont see this happening any time soon. The right to marry though is not in the constitution. It is not a right it is a privlege.

While it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a protected right granted by the Constitution, just like speech and religion. This was part of the basis in allowing interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia).

 

[Stuco]

Stuco, I would suggest a set of discussions among lawmakers, lawers, judges and political philosophers over Same-Sex Marriage and procedural justice in a Democratic society.

While Im not opposed to the Idea I fear that both sides might not be represented farily.