SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) - Laura Bush says gay marriages are ``a very, very shocking issue'' for some people, a subject that should be debated by Americans rather than settled by a Massachusetts court or the mayor of San Francisco.
If you ask me, that's a pretty tactful way of putting it.
Personally, I don't really care what two grown men with non-standard sex drives do on their own time, and I'm glad that the whole gay marriage situation is making people think (at least a little) about the point (or pointelessness) of the state's recognition of marriage.
isn't the "pursuit of happiness" part of the bill of rights?
If by "mob mentality" you mean "democracy," then she has a point, don't she? Things change. Maybe people find a problem with the idea now, but open discussion by people, not just the elite class, can change people's hang-ups on the idea.
And remember that Americans won life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No rights or guarantees of the thing itself.
Difference between what, happiness versus the pursuit of happiness? Attainment.
I'm not arguing against more rights and tolerance, I'm taking Laura Bush's comments at face value and saying let's be open and talk about it. Polls aren't in the picture.
I'm not always a big fan of pure democracies or popular rule of law either, but we have a Constitution and the checks and balances afforded by it to arbitrate. To badly paraphrase Churchill, democracy isn't great, but the alternatives are worse. Besides, we not really a democracy, not at a federal level anyway.
Voting isn't exactly mob mentality, but I doubt this issue will ever get voted on by the public. Even so, it isn't something a mayor should be dealing with. Courts, sure. . . that's what they are there for.
Might I point out that the "mob mentality" of which you speak (so negatively) is what would have gotten Gore elected had the Electoral College not been in place.
This "mob mentality" or "tyranny of the majority" is the very basis on which most elections in this country are founded. Ironically, the President is the ONLY person not elected by this "mob." If you think decisions based on a popular vote are a bad idea, then maybe you need to rustle up your own authoritarian state and tell everyone who's boss. EDIT: Or how about you set up a representative form of governme -- hey, wait a minute. Maybe the U.S.' founding fathers were on to something here.
"You totally misinterpreted what I said," is your reply...but that's really what you WERE saying.
Mob Mentality = A popular vote with which you disagree.
Popular Vote = A mob of those who think the same as you.
It looked like she made a fairly noncommital statement and didn't come out directly against gay marriage. Perhaps she has a different view on it than her husband but doesn't want to go against his administration?
A popular vote is an election. The "tyranny of the majority" refers to letting a popular vote decide laws and override the Constitution.
At the federal level that may ring true, but even then representatives of the people (a.k.a. Congress) are charged with voting the will of the people in making laws.
At the state and local levels, MANY referenda are decided by a popular vote. Everything from a city charter amendment to state-wide conceal and carry laws have/can be decided by the people. Are you saying that NO laws should be decided by popular vote?
A popular vote overriding the Constitution? Maybe on some things, but on others the 10th Amendment has this thing that says, essentially, "If this document don't say it, the states can do it."
"But security and prosperity are not worth anything if you don't maintain and protect the American family from the onslaught that is attacking the family, starting with gay marriages," he said.
Onslaught. Attacking the family.
Americans "have been tolerant of homosexuality for years, but now it's being stuffed down their throats and they don't like it," DeLay said. "They know it will undermine the very foundation of this society[...]"
Tolerant. Undermine the very foundation of this society.
Come on Democrats! Time to grow a set of balls and stick to what you know is right. EQUAL RIGHTS. CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL will not stand.
Atrios says it best: As I say for the hundredth time, this is going to be an issue whether the Democrats want it to be or not. The moment is here - and the thing the Dems can do is take a strong stand on the right side of this issue. Will it doom the Dems? Maybe. I don't know. But taking a weasel stand will hurt them more.
Personally, I hope Bunnypants makes this a central issue to his re-election campaign. I want them to make discrimination and hate a part of their message.
It looked like she made a fairly noncommital statement and didn't come out directly against gay marriage. Perhaps she has a different view on it than her husband but doesn't want to go against his administration?
Well, I don't know if she thinks that differently in the end, but I don't mind a noncommittal attitude about the issue right now. The bigger problem is when people make up their minds without listening or being open-minded that's worse. Oh wait, that describes AO doesn't it?
Comments
though she wants it decided by the people, not the courts...unlike the last presidential election...now that should have been decided by the people...
g
now the question i would love to ask her...did she really cause the death of her boyfriend before she met bush??
Originally posted by badtz
Mrs. Bush
Are you surprised?
SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) - Laura Bush says gay marriages are ``a very, very shocking issue'' for some people, a subject that should be debated by Americans rather than settled by a Massachusetts court or the mayor of San Francisco.
If you ask me, that's a pretty tactful way of putting it.
Personally, I don't really care what two grown men with non-standard sex drives do on their own time, and I'm glad that the whole gay marriage situation is making people think (at least a little) about the point (or pointelessness) of the state's recognition of marriage.
By the way 96% of whites were against mixed race marriages when those were made legal.
are these people really doing anything wrong?
http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried&img=2
isn't the "pursuit of happiness" part of the bill of rights?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
isn't the "pursuit of happiness" part of the bill of rights?
No. It's not. Wrong document. The document that phrase resides in isn't even a legal document.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
isn't the "pursuit of happiness" part of the bill of rights?
No.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Yeah... let the mob mentality decide Laura.
isn't the "pursuit of happiness" part of the bill of rights?
If by "mob mentality" you mean "democracy," then she has a point, don't she?
And remember that Americans won life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No rights or guarantees of the thing itself.
This country was founded on having MORE rights and tolerance... not less... not treating SOME people differently.
96% of white were against mixed race marriages when laws banning it were struck down. That's democracy at work too ya know.
Polls are not democracy.
I'm not arguing against more rights and tolerance, I'm taking Laura Bush's comments at face value and saying let's be open and talk about it. Polls aren't in the picture.
I'm not always a big fan of pure democracies or popular rule of law either, but we have a Constitution and the checks and balances afforded by it to arbitrate. To badly paraphrase Churchill, democracy isn't great, but the alternatives are worse.
Voting isn't exactly mob mentality, but I doubt this issue will ever get voted on by the public. Even so, it isn't something a mayor should be dealing with. Courts, sure. . . that's what they are there for.
This "mob mentality" or "tyranny of the majority" is the very basis on which most elections in this country are founded. Ironically, the President is the ONLY person not elected by this "mob." If you think decisions based on a popular vote are a bad idea, then maybe you need to rustle up your own authoritarian state and tell everyone who's boss. EDIT: Or how about you set up a representative form of governme -- hey, wait a minute. Maybe the U.S.' founding fathers were on to something here.
"You totally misinterpreted what I said," is your reply...but that's really what you WERE saying.
Mob Mentality = A popular vote with which you disagree.
Popular Vote = A mob of those who think the same as you.
Now tell me why I'm wrong.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Mob Mentality = A popular vote with which you disagree.
Popular Vote = A mob of those who think the same as you.
Now tell me why I'm wrong.
A popular vote is an election. The "tyranny of the majority" refers to letting a popular vote decide laws and override the Constitution.
That wasn't very hard.
Originally posted by bunge
A popular vote is an election. The "tyranny of the majority" refers to letting a popular vote decide laws and override the Constitution.
At the federal level that may ring true, but even then representatives of the people (a.k.a. Congress) are charged with voting the will of the people in making laws.
At the state and local levels, MANY referenda are decided by a popular vote. Everything from a city charter amendment to state-wide conceal and carry laws have/can be decided by the people. Are you saying that NO laws should be decided by popular vote?
A popular vote overriding the Constitution? Maybe on some things, but on others the 10th Amendment has this thing that says, essentially, "If this document don't say it, the states can do it."
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_ne...669087,00.html
"But security and prosperity are not worth anything if you don't maintain and protect the American family from the onslaught that is attacking the family, starting with gay marriages," he said.
Onslaught. Attacking the family.
Americans "have been tolerant of homosexuality for years, but now it's being stuffed down their throats and they don't like it," DeLay said. "They know it will undermine the very foundation of this society[...]"
Tolerant. Undermine the very foundation of this society.
Come on Democrats! Time to grow a set of balls and stick to what you know is right. EQUAL RIGHTS. CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL will not stand.
Atrios says it best: As I say for the hundredth time, this is going to be an issue whether the Democrats want it to be or not. The moment is here - and the thing the Dems can do is take a strong stand on the right side of this issue. Will it doom the Dems? Maybe. I don't know. But taking a weasel stand will hurt them more.
Personally, I hope Bunnypants makes this a central issue to his re-election campaign. I want them to make discrimination and hate a part of their message.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/fiore/2...da/index1.html
You may have to endure the advertisement in order to get a day pass, but the animation is worth it.
Originally posted by gyc
It looked like she made a fairly noncommital statement and didn't come out directly against gay marriage. Perhaps she has a different view on it than her husband but doesn't want to go against his administration?
Well, I don't know if she thinks that differently in the end, but I don't mind a noncommittal attitude about the issue right now. The bigger problem is when people make up their minds without listening or being open-minded that's worse. Oh wait, that describes AO doesn't it?
So much for all that "social liberal" crap he espoused during his Re-Decision 2003 campaign. Liberal my ass.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/sa...age/index.html