That whole democracy thing

Don't let people get in your way...

from JoeUser Forums

People talk about democracy. But do they really understand it? How about representative democracy? Basically it means that citizens (the people) make the rules that we live by. We do so by way of voting for legislatures who will pass laws that represent our will.

This was a major point of the Declaration of Independence. The law of the land would be decided by the voters through laws.  It seems a simple enough concept. And for our nation's history, it has worked pretty well.  When Americans concluded that slavery was an abomination, it voted for laws that outlawed it.  When we decided that women should have the right to vote, we voted for laws that explicitly allowed it. 

In every case, it has been laws, passed by the will of the people. Slavery wasn't abolished by a judge. Women weren't granted the right to vote because some mayor decided they should be allowed to vote. The people enacted laws to do that. That's the way democracy works.

And yet on the subject of gay marriage, some people would throw democracy to the wind. Has any federal or state legislature passed a law enabling gays to be married? Forget what position on the issue you take, you either favor democracy or you don't.

I do not approve of judges or mayors or whatever deciding that they will dictate decide for the rest of us. If gay marriage is to be legal, it needs to become legal as a matter of law. Laws passed by elected officials who were voted in to represent the will of the people.

That's what democracy is all about. If we slide into a system where individuals can declare new laws unilaterally, we slide further away into democracy and back towards what the American revolution was supposed to abolish. 

So to those who support gay marriage, some advice: Make your case to the American people. Build support for your position. Lobby legislatures to pass laws. That's democracy in action and it's served this country well for over 200 years.

politics
10,955 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll have to agree with you there. While I'm an avid supporter of gay marriage/civil unions/whatever I concede that in a democratic society laws have to be passed in accordance with established norms. I will advocate for equal rights, I do lobby my representatives, but that is as far as I ever go with this agenda. Renegade judges, so-called liberal thinking mayors disregarding the law or taking it into their own hands, not only does that make a mockery out of the system, if left unchecked it might jeopardise the basic principles democratic societies adhere to. Lobby groups and think-tanks are there to be made use of and through them the pressure should be applied.

Having said that, some issues require a more radical approach (or a stunt) to bring them to the attention of the masses, while I do not condone what happened in San Francisco, I believe that stirring up a controversy is, unfortunately, a very valid tactic which often yields results somewhere down the line.

Mind you, this is all from a non-American's perspective.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think your point is not completely thought out. This allows for an interpretation of governmental theory that is not accurate. When then you reach your conclusion, it is deflated by the errors that are implicit to the case you make.

Slavery was not passed by legislatures at will of Citizens, North or South. Likewise, in modern times we witnessed the U.S. Senate pass both the Uruguay round of the NAFTA and the GATT against the will of the People both Republican (81%opposed) and Democrats (79% opposed) by a vote of 98-1-1. Representative Democracy in America is an interesting theory, but in practice is representative of the CEO's, lobbyists, and lawyers. Money equals power over government. and this is shown well by fact of the nominee of both Republicrat Parties goes to the Candidate having the most money.

As to the Judiciary, I have read some of your opinions of the Courts and its actions. Your experience has been one of your own assenting manifestation. To have a position one holds as rightful and 'settle', rather than defend it under the Rules of Procedure, is to surrender the 'right' willfully. One can hardly condemn the 'system' for your assenting to its coruption and flaws, rather than holding them accountable. Not all litigants do this however. The option is to fight it out and defend the perceived right.

Martin Luther King did not argue that he was not guilty of violating law. He argued the law itself was unjust and therefore must be changed due to his insistence on exposing its' insidious effects on the People. He prevailed and the 'civil rights' act was passed to avoid the continued consequence and price of enforced injustice by government. Can this also apply to the 'gay mariage' issue?

I believe it is just for the Citizens to apply to the Courts for redress of grievance and this is borne out by the clause within the activating document, our Constitution of the United States of America. It is their right to argue that the law is being applied under a theory that is not fair or is violative of their equal protection. As far back as 'Marbury v. Madison' we have seen the Courts take on the authority to question and overrule the majority when it is violative of the individual right. Far from a vice, I view this aspect of our government to be admirable and a fitting solution to majority rule. Perseverence built much of this Country.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Slavery was not passed by legislatures at will of Citizens, North or South. Likewise, in modern times we witnessed the U.S. Senate pass both the Uruguay round of the NAFTA and the GATT against the will of the People both Republican (81%opposed) and Democrats (79% opposed) by a vote of 98-1-1. Representative Democracy in America is an interesting theory, but in practice is representative of the CEO's, lobbyists, and lawyers. Money equals power over government. and this is shown well by fact of the nominee of both Republicrat Parties goes to the Candidate having the most money.


True, the representatives might not vote on every issue exactly how the citizens would, but if they do something that really pisses off the citizens, there's nothing to stop the citizens from voting for somebody else, so the public's opinion still matters.

I'm all for the courts taking action when something is done that is unconstitutional and violates someone's clear civil rights, but using the court for issues such as gay marriage (which I'm sure is not covered in the constitution and also is in no way similar to what MLK Jr. faced as homosexuals can do everything heterosexuals can and are therefore not discriminated against any more than polygamists are) is just showing that there are groups out there that think of democracy as a hinderance. At least lobbyists, CEOs, and others aren't trying to bypass the people's opinion and go straight to some liberal judge that will do what they desire. But if majority rule is that bad, perhaps they should start doing that.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also, if this is actually a plutocracy and not a representative democracy, shouldn't Ross Perot have been president since he was the richest of them all? And Microsoft shouldn't have had to pay a dime since they are one of the richest corps out there. Also, did the nominee go to Kerry because he was super rich or because people liked him more than Dean? Sometimes it's possible that the richest person of the party can also be the one average people like the most and sometimes that isn't a bad thing.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Though I do not agree with gay marriage inserted, or definition of, in the Constitution, were I gay I think I would challenge the court to decide on my rights as an equal citizen.

Mack, I presume you mean by  Renegade judges, that they are liberal weirdos?

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
i disagree with the premise that only legislatures have passed laws in our republic (which is what we are). If it wasn't for the courts, Rosa Parks would have been forced to sit at the back of the bus to cite just one example...

Not to mention, one of the fundamental concepts of any democracy is that the majority is obligated to not oppress the minority...not slam it because they couldn't get 51%

i don't want to go on and on here,,for my thoughts on the subject, go here...


Link
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Though I do not agree with gay marriage inserted, or definition of, in the Constitution, were I gay I think I would challenge the court to decide on my rights as an equal citizen.


That's just smart thinking, like a child going to the parent that will buy him the toy he wants after his other one told him he couldn't have it.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sean, The judge in the Rosa Parks case didn't make law, he only enforced what was already on the books; specially the "Constitution of the United States." He brought out the importance of the 14th Amendment to those who found it unnecessary to follow its need to bring forth civil law.

Pam
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Encarta & Britannica - isn't it nice to have a computer with two compete sets of Encyclopedias. Both are on my computer and "The United States Constitution" is bookmarked in both.

Pam
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's true what Sean said.  Absolute law is passed by legislators but legislators get the pulse of what people I want by individual events, such as Rosa Parks, and perhaps....New Paltz, NY trying to marry gays.

Sadly they don't take that kind of lead nearly as much as "activist" groups who donate to their campaigns.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fourteenth amendment wouldn't have gotten passed if the southern states were still considered a part of the US when it was being considered.

Cheers
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
i never stated that the judge made any law...i just stated that it was a judge that protecteed Parks and others rights,,,to that point, the legislatures and executive parts of the govt were unwilling to bend on the issue and cited other things which legally backed up their position....it took a judge to go against the majority in the state and change the practice.

read my piece before you comment please,,,the parks example was just one of many points i am making, and in the actual article, i don't think i cite it a t all,,,i just thought of it while writing the last response.

here's abnother link...Link
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think we can all agree, democracy is a lousy form of government, but "if men were angels there would be no need for government", and "Democracy is a terrible form of government, just better than everything else."

Cheers
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
If men were angels? No, that came from Ben Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson, I can never remember which. The other one is a paraphrase of a quote of Winston Churchill.

Cheers
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
F.Y.I.

"if men were angels there would be no need for government" -- Madison, The Federalist No. 51

IG
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ahh, thanks, I may be a history professor, but not in colonial American History.

Cheers
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Activist Judges = liberal weirdos?
How quickly you forget that the people vote for Gore, but the judges gave the election to Bush.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Electoral college. Wasn't the first time either. Also, it was Gore who took the election to the judges.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting, but incorrect. 1) You assume that all national decisions are somehow made simultaneously by the voting masses. Not so. For every national debate, in our entire history, there have been substantial amounts of support for either side. What our government does is, more or less, allow a small, motivated group to affect a law, statute, etc. Case in point, slavery. It is possible that majorities did not favor the abomination from the nation's conception, yet it was allowed to persist. 2) We did not pass a law that explicitly allowed women to vote, nor are we ever required to pass a law to allow gay marriage. We don't have a law that explicitly says you can drive 55 MPH in a 55 zone; we have laws that say you cannot drive more than 55 mph in a 55 zone. We did, however, pass a law that restricted government ability to disallow women's suffrage. Point: Laws of this nature, governing certain contracts, civil rights, etc., are usually concerned with restricting governmental powers. And, 3) so called 'activist judges', civil disobedience by citizens as well as mayors, etc., has always been and shall always be a vital part of a functioning democracy. This is the way an organic body of laws develops -- by being tested. The legislature, in as much as it represents the 'will of the people' can only do that so far as it knows the will of the people.

Democracy is a twenty four hour a day goal; it does not just happen on election day. Furthermore, the development of a body of laws that both represents our will as a nation, and governs us justly and efficiently, is a long process that cannot be confined to the voting booth. You are witnessing democracy in action. My advice to you: Deal with it.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
1) If the majority was against slavery (and in this case, the South didn't count as that was part of their punishment for trying to secede from the union), then they could have voted for candidates against slavery. 2) Considering that the entire point to amending the constitution to restrict the government's ability to disallow women's suffrage was to give them the ability to vote, whatever your point is seems to be irrelevant. 3) I didn't realize it was the duty of judges to promote their own political agenda. I also didn't realize that mayors didn't have to abide by the law. When you think about it, all people who break the laws are political activists only trying to test the validity of the law.

Democracy is a twenty four hour a day goal; it does not just happen on election day. Furthermore, the development of a body of laws that both represents our will as a nation, and governs us justly and efficiently, is a long process that cannot be confined to the voting booth. You are witnessing democracy in action. My advice to you: Deal with it.


In this case, democracy means not giving a crap about the will of the majority and just doing whatever you want.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Democracy is a twenty four hour a day goal; it does not just happen on election day. Furthermore, the development of a body of laws that both represents our will as a nation, and governs us justly and efficiently, is a long process that cannot be confined to the voting booth. You are witnessing democracy in action. My advice to you: Deal with it.

This isn't democracy in action, that's dictatorship in action.  Democracy, by definition, is consent of the governed. That consent is delivered via the voting booth.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
one last thought looking at people trying to define democracy to fit their arguement here...

i am reminded of the words of Ben Franklin, who stated ..."Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. "

any questions?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is liberty when a lamb demands the wolves to change a behavior that is not affecting the lamb because it didn't like the way the wolves voted?