Is it democracy when the voters decide on the legality of same sex marriages?

I don’t think it’s right. The Founding Fathers had it right when they foresaw that there are occasions when the politicians are slightly ahead of the masses. They need to protect laws that will one day be so commonplace that people will wonder that they ever weren’t laws.

I’m gonna vote “yes”.
Democracy is people voting on something, right?

Voting on the legality of marijuana is democracy, yeah? Voting on slavery is democracy, yeah? Voting on increased educational spending, isn’t that democracy?
So why wouldn’t voting on same sex marriages be democracy?

It only works if everyone who is eligible to vote does vote. When a few of the voters choose what the law should be, no.

I would think such an issue should be addressed by the State Supreme Court if it’s a matter of rights.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic I was in a discussion about this awhile back, and I believe the consensus was that the Supreme Court can only decide cases that are already voted on, and they can only decide if it is Constitutional or not. They don’t take a concept such as marriage for all, regardless of sex, and decide whether it can be allowed or not allowed until after it is already a law. Then they decide whether the law is allowed under the Constitution.

You ask an array of different questions about the same subject:

“Is it democracy…?” YES
“Does it serve democracy…?” SUBJECTIVE/UNDEFINED
“Should the majority get to decide…?” SUBJECTIVE/PHILOSOPHICAL/MORAL

Are you asking for opinions or absolutes?
I don’t see a clear meaning of the second question.
My personal opinion about the third question is no, the majority shouldn’t impose marriage rules via government in the context of the USA.

@Zaku

I am asking for opinon..you don’t have to answer any or all of the questions. I am just giving some clues as to what we can discuss about with this topic.

@YARNLADY
Do you mean a law like DOMA?

Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1.No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2.The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

@airowDee I wasn’t thinking of any specific law, but only whether the Supreme Court would address a subject.

Honestly, I don’t think the government should be in the business of “marriage” any more. Establish rights & protections under civil unions, equally applicable for hetero, homo, and multiple partners. Let religious organizations conduct their own various flavors of “commitment ceremonies” as they please, following their own morals or ethics.

Yes, it is. That’s how we do things here… we are fortunate enough to get to have a majority’s vote. The voters should decide rather than the Supreme Court, Congress, etc. It shouldn’t be something our government decides, it should something the citizens decide. A decision has to be made, so who better to make it?

@BBSDTfamily so should there be a vote to decide on the legality of non-same sex marriage? Why single out same sex marriage?

@PupnTaco

I think religious organizations have always conducted “their own various flavors of “commitment ceremonies as they please, following their own morals or ethics.”

Yes it would be democracy.
But it also showcases a severe flaw in the entire concept of democracy: the tendency of the system to steer towards “tyranny by majority”, which is why democracy has to be restricted, implemented by modern democracies by utilising constitutions and courts that enforce these restrictions.
Is it democracy? Yes.
Should the public decide over this civil right issue? No.

@RareDenver It’s not singled out, it is a new possibility that hasn’t been in existence for many many years, and so it is a decision we have to make now. The people made the same sex marriage decision then.

@BBSDTfamily
The same can be said about inter-racial marriage.

@ragingloli You’re saying interracial marriage is a new concept that we are currently trying to decide if it is legal or not (b/c that’s what my post above meant about same sex marriage)? That’s incorrect. Every human race has been legally equal for many years now.

@airowDee If you don’t think the majority should decide, who do you think should decide?? Should we just let the minorities get their way with everything without passing it into law? There are also minority groups out there who still believe in white supremacy… it just doesn’t make sense to let minority groups come up with new rules on their own, because some of them are very bad.

@ragingloli If that’s not what you meant then please explain… I just assumed that is what you meant since you said the same thing can be said about interracial marriage and that is what I meant by my statement.

@BBSDTfamily
Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until 1967, a result of the deeply rooted racism in the white american populace, and the ban was supported by the majority as well, especially in southern parts, as was segregation. Should the public have decided the legality of segregation and interracial marriage? I can almost guarantee you that the public would have decided in favour of the racist status quo.

“If you don’t think the majority should decide, who do you think should decide?? Should we just let the minorities get their way with everything without passing it into law? There are also minority groups out there who still want white supremacy laws”

What if the majority wanted white supremacy laws?

@ragingloli There is never 100% agreement in the country, even though we strive to get as close to that as possible with a majority vote. That’s the way things are here in America, and that’s the best way. There are people who agree and people who disagree with same-sex marriage, so just b/c one group thinks it should be legalized doesn’t make it right, wrong, or anything. It just makes it their opinion. The fairest way is majority vote, period.

Tell that to the blacks of the 60’s.
When the majority votes on your rights and decides you should not have them, then that is not fair. That is tyranny. Period.

@ragingloli Nobody is claiming that the majority is always right! But it is the best way, and there is no better way to handle the same-sex marriage issue.

PS- You should look up tyranny in the dictionary….. majority vote is the opposite.

yes there is. adhering to the equality principle of the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

@ragingloli Tyranny would be one person, let’s say the President, making the decision and the citizens having no say so over it whatsoever, no matter how it affected them.

There is no situation in which everyone will be happy. If same-sex marriage is legalized, one group will complain. If it isn’t, the other will complain. The people who want same-sex marriage feel that their rights are violated if they don’t get it. The people who do not want same-sex marriage would feel just as wronged, so no, sorry, one minority group shouldn’t get to decide for everyone. The best thing they can do is try to get their message across why it is the right thing, and hope the majority sees it their way.

That’s America. I don’t care one way or the other what happens with same-sex marriage, but I am sick of hearing people claim that they are being singled out just because this issue is up for discussion right now.

then why did the founders create a constitution?

@BBSDTfamily The word tyranny, in one sense, does refer to a tyrant, one who is an illegitimate ruler. But a tyranny, used in a broader sense can refer to one group (even a majority) forcing its rule or point of view on another group, especially if that point of view is controversial. I believe the reason @ragingloli has brought up interracial marriage is that there are many parallels between the Anti-miscegnation laws and the DOMA, as referenced above.

As to your question about “does it serve democracy”:
I think it does not serve democracy when a group (even a majority) uses a ballot initiative to execute an “end run” around legitimate legislation. The constitution created the legislative process to be republican (small “r”) rather than as a direct democracy.
time is catching up with me, I will have to continue this later

@Yetanotheruser There is no better way, however. I guess by your view, everything in America is pretty much a tyranny? It makes much more sense for a majority to decide for a minority than vice versa. As I said before, we cannot let minority groups just make their own rules…. the majority is not always right, but just because this minority group feels like their rights are violated, so do some of the majority who do not want to see same-sex marriage passed into legislation. Both sides are fighting equally hard for opposite results. Who can say which one is right? All of the arguments you guys are making could easily be flipped- and I think the majority being ruled by the minority would be even worse than the current condition. No matter what, every one isn’t going to be happy with the outcome… some will be upset.

If you do not believe the majority should vote, what do you think should happen? Just let people make whatever they feel like legal, regardless of what most people want? Just imagine some of the laws we would have then….. Some good ones, but some terrible ones also.

@BBSDTfamily I never said the majority should vote. What I am saying is the US Federal government (as well as state governments, more or less) was designed to be a representative republic, not a direct democracy. While some ballot initiatives, voted upon directly by those voting, have their place, especially in local government, it seems to me that the process of passing laws by direct ballot defeats the purpose of representative government.

again, I’m up against the clock. I’ll check back later

PS Great conversation, all!

@BBSDTfamily The problem with most countries on the on the planet is that the majority pushes their will upon the minorities.

In US history, at one point the majority thought that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and black people were to be treated as lesser beings than white people. Had those issues been put to a vote in 1940, they would have been likely upheld.

Blah, blah, blah. Majority vote is just another way for the bigots to excuse their opinions and prejudicial laws.

@tinyfaery majority vote is a way for the majority of the people to get what they want.
Majority vote decided (eventually) that THE BLACKS are actually people, as well as that WIMMENZ get to vote. Are those prejudices that bigots should keep to themselves?

If 7 kids want pizza and 3 kids want hamburgers (assuming they have to stay together), it makes sense for them to get pizza instead of burgers.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic and @Yetanotheruser But then WHO should vote/make the decision? The government? Usually they swing the way of the majority as well if they want to be re-elected (some politicians more than others).... You say that the current majority way is the wrong way. What is the right way? Do you have a better idea? I don’t hear anyone in this discussion throwing out any solutions.

@Sarcasm
You make alot of sense!

@BBSDTfamily
yes there is. adhering to the equality principle of the constitution.
did you miss it? or did you ignore it.

@Sarcasm

The majority did not always decide that the blacks are actually people deserving of equal rights, the court played a huge role. As did the women and blacks who used their blood and sweats to start a movement.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),[1] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, which overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court’s unanimous (9–0) decision stated that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This victory paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement.[2]

Blah Blah Blah.

Well that certainly changed my opinion about things ‘n stuff @tinyfaery.

I’m not out to change anyone’s opinion, only to point out hypocrisy and ignorance. Read airow’s post. It’s usually NOT voters that advance civil rights.

in the US our democracy is majority rule with minority rights!

so yes, one can say that simply having votes on things is democracy. but that is not the type of democracy that we have embraced in the united states.

you cannot allow the majority to decide who gets what right. the definition of right is that it is inherently a right. so if one person has a right to marry then any other person has (or should in theory have) that same right.

the way that they have able to hold onto DOMA for so long is that the constitution does not specify one way or the other on marriage, so the federal government can do as they please on this one… they chose to define it as a man and woman (which is fucking laughable because a person’s sex can be changed)

[obviously] i am not conservative, and i am pro-gay marriage (actually i am anit-any and all marriage, but that is a different story), but i have hear ONE conservative point that i would be willing to compromise on. a republican friend of mine said he thinks that gay marriage should be a state’s right issue. (and secondly the fed gov should not be defining marriage for the state, there should be no fed intervention). so although i would like to end all bigotry with one fed law allowing gay marriage, i am willing to take the state’s rights argument as a start in fixing this really bad bad problem.

No, because activist judges will nullify the vote when it doesn’t come out the way some snivelers wanted to, thus making the voting process some waste of time and a big sham.