@ Conservative Man

Interesting point. I'm curious, though, who is "the government" who disagreed with the voters' decision in this case? The plaintiffs? The judge?

"This desicion exposes the evil of the government, but people are to wrapped up in the effects of the desicion to realize it. "

I'm not sure I follow. The majority was abusing their power and Government stepped in to help the minority. How is this evil?

@V+: The judge is the one we know about, but he probably was ordered to disagree by the government. (Like the President or Congress).

@Tantris: Although majority rule is bad, it's better than what we have now. Anarchy would be better, but right now, we should at least have majority rule. Here's my take on this: If the public had voted NO on Prop 8, it would have been a good desicion. When the judge overturned the YES vote on Prop 8, that was a bad desicion.

anyone up for an live game??? I see that there's a lot of people here that is online
2 more needed starts in an hour and a half
gameID=35253

@Abgemacht: Do you believe the United States should be a democracy/republic? (I don't, but besides anarchy it's the best system)

Anyway, I have to go soon, I'll be back in a few hours.

"The judge is the one we know about, but he probably was ordered to disagree by the government. (Like the President or Congress)."

Actually, probably not. That's why Judges have life appointments; so they aren't pressured by others. Also, The President and Congress are in different branches than Judges, so they don't really answer to them anyway.

The US *is* a democratic republic. For all practical purposes, what I think it *should* be, doesn't really matter.

@ Conservative Man

Why would a federal judge with a lifetime appointment (nominated originally by Reagan then re-nominated by Bush Sr.) take orders from the executive or legislative branches? He's got a lifetime appointment so he can be independent.

Mob rule is much worse than what we have now. That seems to be what you want.

Also, this law violated another law. How exactly was that supposed to be dealt with? Ignore the higher law, federal law, and make the state one the one in power. That would create anarchy. Any state could just pass laws overriding all federal laws.

@Octavious and Conservative Man
You have a really distorted concept of democracy. Democracy is not the majority ruling over everybody that is a minority. Democracy is the government of the majority, respecting the rights of everybody, and that´s why it always needs a Constitution to set the minimal standarts the governemt AND the people have to respect and also the check and balances system to enforce the Constitution and to avoid such kind of behaviour over gay, black, muslin or any other minority.

@Tantris: "Any state could just pass laws overriding all federal laws" What's wrong with that?

@rdrivera: A democracy is by definition a majority rule system. What we currently have is a twisted version of the democratic republican system
Our System < Democracy < Anarchy.

Democracy < Anarchy?

Are you crazy?

@Invictus: Nope. And I'm not the only one that believes that either. Talk to Sicarius or Friendly Sword. One question though. When I say I want anarchy, what exactly is it you think I want?

Clarification:

Though I have anarchist sympathies, my views on a variety of subjects differ considerably from both Conservative Man and Sicarius. :)

So like, don't assume we take the positions on stuff yadda yadda yadda. ;)

Regarding this subject, I think that the government ought to have no business interfering with marriage at all, but if it insists on being the ultimate arbiter of legal relationships, at least it ought to be consistently applied. No student of history would buy the line that marriage belongs to the Christians, so it becomes a matter of applying the law consistently to minority groups.

Really this is about whether the majority has the right not to have it's feelings hurt at the expense of minority equality.

I don't think it does, and the US constitution agrees, thank God!! :)

We tried having a weak federal government at the will of the states, and it failed. It was what the articles of confederation did. The US Constitution is the law of all levels of government, when it comes to those rights protected for the people.

I think anarchy would be horrible just as a full democracy would be. Anarchy would probably end in rule be the corporations. If you have a job with the corp, you are protected and governed...if not, you are screwed. Would be like the warlords in Afghanistan.

I like most of the way the US is run.

@Tantris: In real anarchy, there wouldn't be corporations.

Just because a majority says so is not sufficient to deprive others of rights.

A majority of people supported banning interracial marriages when Loving v Virginia struck down those laws. A majority of voters wanted segregation. Or slavery. The majority doesn't not have the right to have a complete tyranny over the minority.

And please riddle me this one, Batman. How is the fact that two gay men can get married make your life any better or worse? Or your marriage any more or less valid?

If your marriage needs protecting, you need a therapist, not an amendment.

+1 Jack Klein

@Jack: "The majority doesn't not have the right to have a complete tyranny over the minority." Exactly, that's why I want anarchy. However, tyranny by the majority is still better than our current system, which I call tyranny by the government.

Anarchy would be lots of killing and fighting. There would be some sort of power groups formed, out of necessity.

The point is not have stronger States and a weaker federal government per se. It is to reduce the centralization of authority and the pre-eminence of coercive power structures in general. The enemy of freedom is a culture of obedience to violence, not the simple existence of organizational entities (which are often very beneficial to those involved with them).

Small states are general better than large ones, but only as a matter of degree.

Anyway, anarchy is only more violent than a massive imperialist state in your imagination. :) But I digress.

Explain to me how the government is fomenting a tyranny because of this court striking down Proposition 8?

This seems to me to be a fairly clear cut case of the judiciary exercising its duty to ensure the Constitution is followed.

@Jack: The government overturned the will of the people. That is tyranny.

@Conservative Man:

What happened to our precious democracy, you ask?

For once--it worked.

Democracy as we have in the USA isn't merely "majority rules," the Founders were FAR too wise to let that be the rule, even they must have known if you give the power totally to the masses you are just asking for mob rule and loudest voice wins and shouting contests and...well, the sort of Town Hall fiascos we saw over health care, ie, the precursors to MOB rule, NOT democracy/a republic.

We have the word of the people.
And THEN we have the word of the Executive Branch.
And THEN we have the Judiciaries to make sure no rights were trampled.

Minority and civil rights were trampled, so it doesn't matter if every single voter in California voted against gay marriage, it's STILL trampling on those rights, and so outside the guidelines and laws of the state, and so unconstitutional, and so must be struck down.

This bothers me, really, nowasdays its such a fad to blame the "big bad guvernmint" for not listening to the little guy...and here they DO huphold the rights of the little guy, and the mob complains.

To those who hate the "big bad guvernmint," I ask:

Do you like having a (still) top-of-the-line, world-leading Army and Navy and Air Force to protect you from invasion and potential threats?
Do you like the roads and other public works that are, at least in part, made possible by a big state effort?
Do you like the fact your rights as a minority won't be trampled by a mob or majority rule, that the majority can have its say and edecide but not unjustly kick around the minority parties?

This is not 1910, its 2010, America is no longer an isolationist, small-player in world affairs. She is a superpower, like it or not, and need a big government to deal with that now, as dealing with a global ecomomy and terrorism and international diplomacy with nations that sport city-destroying weapons while trying to keep pace technologically and medically, all of that and more ties into this "big bad guvernmint" which, sorry, is now necessary, and has been since The World Wars, or at least, WWII or post WWII.



Further, to those who might make the claim "I HATE the idea of the majority opinion being overruled by a judiciary," let me direct you to a place and time.

Munich, 1935.

Obviously the Third Reich was no democracy, but let's say, for the sake of argument, they WERE. Let's say Hitler was elected (no stretch there, he actually WAS, just one more proof the common man and popular vote are not immune to fouling up big time) and the Reich was a democracy through and through. Let's say that the "Nazi Senate" passed the Final Solution Proposition with nearly unanimous support, and Hitler signed off on it, and 90% of the German people loved the idea of shoving Jews into ovens, even though the German Constituion of this Third Reich Democracy promises fair treatment and equal treatment to all its citizens, Jewry included.

Does that make it OK or RIGHT, then, to do so, just because the majority said that's what they wanted?

@Jack - The MAJORITY of the people voted on a thing....by a *super-majority* because it was a ballot prop....and the will of *one* man overturned them all. THAT is tyrany...DUHHHHHHHHHH! Fucking moron...You can disagree with ideology, but to deny that the few dictating to the many is tyranny just shows you are ignorant and/or STUPID (willfully).

So you're saying that the majority are allowed to enact any laws they wish that would discriminate against minorities?

I'll break it down to you in simple terms, since you don't seem to understand how the law works.

The California law says X. X is contradicted by the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. In legal terms, what the Constitution says trumps state law.

Therefore, the state law is struck down. If a majority enacted a law that made all black people slaves again, would you support it because its the "will of the people"?

If this is favored by such a majority of people, then it should be simple to propose a Constitutional Amendment. That would be the "correct" route.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It trumps everything else.. as it was designed. If you don't like that, try to amend it. Good luck with that.

First of all, Krelin, you're an idiot.

Second of all, to back up my first point, it wasn't a supermajority. It was 52.24% in favor, and 47.76%.

A supermajority is 66 percent of the vote (or 60, depending on the jurisdiction.)

And it was struck down because it VIOLATED the Constitution. So I assume you don't think the Constitution is a good idea, right?

So long story short, Krelin, you might want to get your facts straight before you PROVE to the rest of us that you're an ill educated shitgoblin.