I'm sorry, but in this country, majority does not rule.
We are NOT a democracy. We are a republic.
If we were a democracy, our constitution would be irrelevant, simply because it could be overturned or re-written simply by a 51% vote.
We are a republic because of our system of checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority WHILE protecting the rights of the minority. See Brown v. Board of Education for more information on how and why this works.
We are NOT a democracy. We are a republic.
If we were a democracy, our constitution would be irrelevant, simply because it could be overturned or re-written simply by a 51% vote.
We are a republic because of our system of checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority WHILE protecting the rights of the minority. See Brown v. Board of Education for more information on how and why this works.
Kennedy 0
QuoteQuoteAre we afraid gays will increase the divorce rate?
The divorce rate will increase. Do you think every gay that marries will stay that way? The lawyers are probably salivating over all of the additional money that they'll make.
Well I heard a relevant joke yesterday [told by a lesbian]:
Q: What does a lesbian bring to the second date?
A: a U-Haul
.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
Actually we are a representative democracy with a constitution.
Checks and balances, if you're talking about three branches of gov, etc are to prevent a build up of power in any one place, not to prevent any particular action by those branches.
Checks and balances, if you're talking about three branches of gov, etc are to prevent a build up of power in any one place, not to prevent any particular action by those branches.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
the "divorce rate" is a percentage. More people marrying and will probably not affect that percentage much.
for example: now, you have 1000 marriages performed in one year in Nowhere County. 500 of them end in divorce. you have a divorce rate of 50%.
Now, you allow gay marriage. So now, you have 1500 marriages. 750 of them end in divorce. You still have a divorce rate of 50%.
Gay marriages may increase the number of divorces (of course some gay marriages won't work out. some straight marriages won't work out.) but they will probably have little to no effect on the "divorce rate."
for example: now, you have 1000 marriages performed in one year in Nowhere County. 500 of them end in divorce. you have a divorce rate of 50%.
Now, you allow gay marriage. So now, you have 1500 marriages. 750 of them end in divorce. You still have a divorce rate of 50%.
Gay marriages may increase the number of divorces (of course some gay marriages won't work out. some straight marriages won't work out.) but they will probably have little to no effect on the "divorce rate."
"I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."
Kennedy 0
"...One Nation, Under God, Indivisible..."
You really want to say that the pledge is the end all be all?
You really want to say that the pledge is the end all be all?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Bill, I am not!!!!
I am say any 3 + way marriage is out. Any Gay marriage is out.
Allowing gay marriage is opening a pandoras box
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
I am say any 3 + way marriage is out. Any Gay marriage is out.
Allowing gay marriage is opening a pandoras box
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
billvon 2,427
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Then why do you advocate the mayor of San Francisco breaking the
>law? Let the legal system work it out.
Agreed there. I am glad there are now "test cases," but I'm sorry they happened in SF where it's illegal rather than in New Mexico where it isn't.
>He's promoting your point of view so you support him.
I think he's doing the right thing. If he ends up going to jail I'm not going to complain, because he's breaking the law. I am glad that friends of mine can now get married, but sorry that the mayor had to break the law to do it.
Rosa Parks got arrested years ago because, as a black woman, she dared to sit in the front of the bus. I would have supported her too, even though she was breaking the law.
>law? Let the legal system work it out.
Agreed there. I am glad there are now "test cases," but I'm sorry they happened in SF where it's illegal rather than in New Mexico where it isn't.
>He's promoting your point of view so you support him.
I think he's doing the right thing. If he ends up going to jail I'm not going to complain, because he's breaking the law. I am glad that friends of mine can now get married, but sorry that the mayor had to break the law to do it.
Rosa Parks got arrested years ago because, as a black woman, she dared to sit in the front of the bus. I would have supported her too, even though she was breaking the law.
The United States is a federal republic, not a democracy. This usage of the term republic was particularly common around the time of the American Founding Fathers. The authors of the United States Constitution intentionally chose what they called a republic for several reasons. For one, it is impractical to collect votes from every citizen on every political issue. In theory, representatives would be more well-informed and less emotional than the general populace. Furthermore, a republic can be contrived to protect against the "tyranny of the majority." The Federalist Papers outline the idea that pure democracy is actually quite dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a minority. By forming what they called a Republic, in which representatives are chosen in many different ways (the President, House, Senate, and state officials are all elected differently), it is more difficult for a majority to control enough of the government to infringe upon a minority
billvon 2,427
>I am say any 3 + way marriage is out. Any Gay marriage is out.
OK. In that case I say any marriage between two people is fine, any 3+ way marriage is out.
>Allowing gay marriage is opening a pandoras box
No more so than allowing interracial marriage was opening a pandora's box. Opponents at the time said things like "if you let a woman marry a black, what's to keep her from marrying a chimpanzee?" Yet here we are, 40 years later, and women don't marry chimpanzees. I think the fears that allowing gay marriage will lead to women marrying chimpanzees (or four guys, or a mailbox, or the state of Idaho) are as unfounded now as they were 40 years ago.
OK. In that case I say any marriage between two people is fine, any 3+ way marriage is out.
>Allowing gay marriage is opening a pandoras box
No more so than allowing interracial marriage was opening a pandora's box. Opponents at the time said things like "if you let a woman marry a black, what's to keep her from marrying a chimpanzee?" Yet here we are, 40 years later, and women don't marry chimpanzees. I think the fears that allowing gay marriage will lead to women marrying chimpanzees (or four guys, or a mailbox, or the state of Idaho) are as unfounded now as they were 40 years ago.
The divorce rate will increase. Do you think every gay that marries will stay that way? The lawyers are probably salivating over all of the additional money that they'll make.
never pull low......unless you are