Friday, August 6, 2010
Prop 8...
So as of recent a proposition that California had voted for and had passed was recently over turned by a judge in San Fransisco. Weather you are for or against the proposition is really irrelevant to this post. This post is a thought of confusion as to why things can be over turned when the majority of a state voted and passed this proposition. I'm confused about democracy. In school I learned that government is not to be run by one person's views and opinions, but rather the people make up the government. The people vote for and decide what laws and regulations there will be and the judges uphold and enforce these laws. The people decide the laws, not judges. I'm not the smartest guy or even the wisest, but I feel that what has happened is wrong. Does this mean that a judge can turn around and change the legal age to drive to 5 years old? I mean if one law can be over turned why not another? Again, this isn't a post about my connection to a proposition, it's a post about the integrity of our government. If I vote for something and it doesn't pass then I accept that the majority of my state or America has disagreed with me and I will abide by what the majority wants, not necessarily agree, but abide. It's difficult to have faith in a state or country rather, where people can vote for what they want and then have a person who has been appointed to uphold and enforce the law overturn what the majority wants. I personally feel that this is just the beginning of a downward spiral, in which people will not let democracy work...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simple. The MAJORITY cannot simply be allowed to determine the rights of a MINORITY. Otherwise, slavery would most likely still be legal law of the land. It was working out pretty well for the white majority, all that free labor to get rich on. It takes judicial review of our constitution in such cases to not allow a minority to be unjustly discriminated against.
ReplyDeleteSo if the MAJORITY doesn't determine the rights of the MINORITY, then who determines rights at all? The MINORITY decides? Everyone decides their own rights? BOTH the majority and minority participated in the process of determining rights, which is democracy, by voting for or against this proposition. One side lost the other won. If you voted, then you knew this was going to happen. As for the abolition of slavery it was ratified to be amended to the constitution by the MAJORITY of people. Unfortunately it took a Civil war to come to this conclusion. And who decides discrimination? If I want to marry a poodle, a turkey, and a building should people have the right to discriminate against my decision? Shouldn't I be allowed to marry the White House? There has to be regulation...
ReplyDeletebasically we all know the world is going to crap just as predicted in the scriptures. Like how when a nation of people would become wealthy then get prideful then eventually when they were all caught up in riches they would be humbled... kinda like our recession. oh and a great thing I just read the other day talking about how a government should be the voice of the people....well sometimes there are more evil people than there are good and Mosiah warned that if this ever occurred "then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then this is the time he will visit you with great destruction." Then one of the quotes from D&C that I think rings true today..."when the wicked rule the people mourn." Sorry to get all preachy and scripturey but that's what came to mind reading your post. I guess that's life and as long as you're doing what's right... you'll be taken care of :)
ReplyDeleteyou can't 'marry' a turkey or a building because they are not able to make the decision to marry you. that is apples and oranges buddy.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, those are some extreme examples, but my point is this that if the decision stands, it will be a precedent for other challenges to state marriage laws. If there is no rational basis for a distinction between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, is there a rational basis for a distinction between bigamy or polygamy and monogamy? If a woman wants to marry the man she loves, what is the rational basis for saying she can’t do so just because she is married to another man who she says she also loves? What if the other man grants his consent to the second marriage, maybe because he wants a second marriage himself? Suppose they both then want to marry others? Does the concept of marriage then have any meaning? Is marriage itself rational any more? Indeed, the now opened questions go beyond even this. Suppose a 65-year-old widow wants to marry her beloved cat. What is the rational basis for the government denying that? If that becomes a precedent, what is the rational basis for the government denying a younger woman marriage to other animals? I admit this is getting gross and ridiculous. I would have kept the line at marriage between a man and a woman. What is the rational basis for formal legal recognition of anything else?
ReplyDelete(P.S. A man in Germany married his cat a few months ago. Should we regulate?
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20100503-26937.html