Gay marriage

[thegayhare]

So polls all over the country are closed and while it's not a major election day there are lots of referenda on the ballots that people are watching

Myself I'm watching Maines Question 1. thats the one that would if it passes would delete new law granting gays the right to marry

So far the results still realy close
REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW
Yes    196957    51.54%
No    185163    48.46%

It's still winnable by use on the no side , and I'm hoping and praying

So are there any local issues you folks are watching?

[Brunhidden]

the issue that comes to my mind is that the gay marrage votes always fail when put to popular vote, but often win if put to legislative vote

i encourage people to run for state legislature, its easier then you might think

[JackTheCubiWolf]

I don't get while people are against gay marriage. I'm not gay myself but, if two people are in love, whether they're the same gender or not, why can't they be married?

[Baal Hadad]

I think the real issue is bigger than that.  I think the real issue is, if you have a problem with something people do, and it doesn't affect you unless you do it yourself, why not just not do it yourself instead of trying to legally forbid EVERYONE from doing that?  I thought that was the definition of freedom--CHOICE.

[Vidar]

I don't get while people are against gay marriage. I'm not gay myself but, if two people are in love, whether they're the same gender or not, why can't they be married?

The arguments against gay marriage tend to be on religious grounds, or because "it's icky". The opponents of gay marriage try to hide these behind "protection of marriage" claims, and claims that gay marriage is immoral, without ever telling why gay marriage would violate the sanctity of marriage, or why gay marriage is immoral.
I suspect there's a lot of fear mongering from preachers and fox news and their ilk involved too.

Edit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aCCZtb1cX4

Turns out the Catholic Church has been campaigning against gay marriage.
It's painful to watch, really. The preacher trots out the "think of the children" argument, the "redefining marriage" argument, the "destruction of marriage" argument, etc.
It's trivial to debunk each of these.
It seems that religious institutions have too much power to allow for equality in America.

[superluser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aCCZtb1cX4

Turns out the Catholic Church has been campaigning against gay marriage.
It's painful to watch, really. The preacher trots out the "think of the children" argument, the "redefining marriage" argument, the "destruction of marriage" argument, etc.
It's trivial to debunk each of these.
It seems that religious institutions have too much power to allow for equality in America.

For the record, that's not a Catholic bishop.  The archbishop there is Donald Wuerl, and there are several auxiliary bishops: Francisco Gonzalez, Martin Holley, and Barry Knestout.

When you go to Saint PO Box 1245 Divinity School (and I'm not saying that's the case for Bishop Harry Jackson), you basically get the right to start your own denomination and choose your title from the title bin (I'm going to be a ZoroSunni Cardinal Subdeacon!).  In this case, Bishop Harry Jackson didn't start his own religion, but rather joined the ancient religious denomination known as The Fellowship Of International Churches (EST 1981).  Judging from their website, FOIC seems to be a bit like Oprah: ``You get to be a bishop!  You get to be a bishop!  Everybody gets to be a bishop!''

Also for the record, most of the the gay marriage rhetoric does not seem to be coming from the Catholic hierarchy, but from Protestants and lay Catholics.

[Kafzeil]

Also, Vidar, keep in mind Catholics are actually, in a sense, a religious minority in the States. The US is, and always has been, vastly Protestant, and most religious US polictians are Protastant.



Always wanted to use that one.

[superluser]

Also, Vidar, keep in mind Catholics are actually, in a sense, a religious minority in the States. The US is, and always has been, vastly Protestant, and most religious US polictians are Protastant.

If you want numbers, about 23-25% of the US is Catholic, and it's the largest denomination in the US.  But over twice that number, 52-53%, are Protestant of one denomination or another. (source)

[Vidar]

Also, Vidar, keep in mind Catholics are actually, in a sense, a religious minority in the States. The US is, and always has been, vastly Protestant, and most religious US polictians are Protastant.

If you want numbers, about 23-25% of the US is Catholic, and it's the largest denomination in the US.  But over twice that number, 52-53%, are Protestant of one denomination or another. (source)

Regardless of whether a denomination is a minority or not, it seems that religion has far too much influence, and they use it to make their bigotry into law.
First it was the Mormon church in California, and now some other christian sect did the same in Maine.
Who's idea was it to base laws on the opinion of the majority anyway? Isn't it part of the government's job to protect minorities from the tyranny of the masses?

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Who's idea was it to base laws on the opinion of the majority anyway? Isn't it part of the government's job to protect minorities from the tyranny of the masses?

I do think the basic idea of *caughs* democracy in general is to base governance, and thus law, on the opinion of the majority. Yes, the government is supposed to protect minorities, but the idea of what is socially right or wrong, accepted or not, has to come from somewhere. And ultimately, that's people, making up their minds. You decry the influence of religious groups, but what's the difference between that and say, celebrity endorsement of whatever cause? Influence is influence, no? Neither group, that I know of, incited violence in Maine, or acted illegally, and we do have laws that say you're allowed to persuade other people to whatever damnfool position you want.

I suppose you could theorize some sort of government where progressive principles override majority will, but at least to me, that sounds like a bizarre form of left wing fascism. What's the difference between "Out with the homosexuals!" and "Out with the homophobes!"?

I for one, am very uncomfortable with a government deciding what is right and what is wrong in a moral sense. Legal sense, yes, there has to be some standard of action, but on an issue of "values"? Unsteady ground.

[Vidar]

Who's idea was it to base laws on the opinion of the majority anyway? Isn't it part of the government's job to protect minorities from the tyranny of the masses?

I do think the basic idea of *caughs* democracy in general is to base governance, and thus law, on the opinion of the majority. Yes, the government is supposed to protect minorities, but the idea of what is socially right or wrong, accepted or not, has to come from somewhere. And ultimately, that's people, making up their minds. You decry the influence of religious groups, but what's the difference between that and say, celebrity endorsement of whatever cause? Influence is influence, no? Neither group, that I know of, incited violence in Maine, or acted illegally, and we do have laws that say you're allowed to persuade other people to whatever damnfool position you want.

In a pure democracy, you would be right, but America is a democratic republic. People choose who their leaders are, and the leaders are supposed to make the law based on secular reasoning. This construct is there to avoid turning bigotry and religion into law.

I suppose you could theorize some sort of government where progressive principles override majority will, but at least to me, that sounds like a bizarre form of left wing fascism.

In that case, you have no idea what fascism is all about. Go read the wikipedia article about fascism, please.
Fascism is a far-right wing of doing things. It's authoritarian and nationalistic.

What's the difference between "Out with the homosexuals!" and "Out with the homophobes!"?

The difference between "out with the homosexuals" and "out with the homophobes" is only the target of the bigotry. Neither should be passed into law.

I for one, am very uncomfortable with a government deciding what is right and what is wrong in a moral sense. Legal sense, yes, there has to be some standard of action, but on an issue of "values"? Unsteady ground.

Yet that's what the government is trying to do in this case: homosexuality is deemed 'immoral' on religious ground, and the religious majority then had it passed into law, effectively making everyone subject to their morality, regardless of their convictions.
Laws should be made on the bases of whether an action would be detrimental to society (such as murder, theft, etc.). If an action is detrimental to society, it should be forbidden, if it is not, it should be allowed.
Homosexuals getting married does not have a negative impact on society, and should therefore be allowed.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

In a pure democracy, you would be right, but America is a democratic republic. People choose who their leaders are, and the leaders are supposed to make the law based on secular reasoning. This construct is there to avoid turning bigotry and religion into law.

So, for purposes of clarification, is it your view that referendums should be categorically banned, because it cuts out the link of the elected representative?

I suppose one could make the argument that the populace at large isn't qualified to legislate, but the only reasoning that is supposed to be behind a legislator's decisionmaking is the constitution, which itself draws it's authority from "We the people". I realize the representative vs authoritative legislator debate has been around for a while. (Do I do what you say you want, or what I think you should want?), but ultimately, referendums cut out the middlemen. Any position can be reached simply by voting out of office any legislator who runs contrary to the popular will, and making enough amendments to previous  laws.

In that case, you have no idea what fascism is all about. Go read the wikipedia article about fascism, please.
Fascism is a far-right wing of doing things. It's authoritarian and nationalistic.

Please note my words "bizarre form". I'm groping towards a concept here that I don't have political language to express. You can have authoritarian, right wing, nationalistic administrations without them being fascist. The difference between say, Italy in the late thirties and Great Britain of the same time, when both were embarking on right wing nationalistic programs of governments that were drastically expanding their power, is that the fascist government cannot be overturned, and that it's ideology, not populist will, is what drives the legislative machine.

Of course it would be leftist, but I see any sort of government that is brought about the sort of lines of "If you disagree with this progressive agenda, you are WRONG and cannot legislate thus, even if your entire constituency backs you", smacks of fascism. If there is some sort of term that covers this kind of government, please, inform me, and we can discuss without issues of semantics clouding things.

Yet that's what the government is trying to do in this case: homosexuality is deemed 'immoral' on religious ground, and the religious majority then had it passed into law, effectively making everyone subject to their morality, regardless of their convictions.

As I recall, the legislation allowing homosexual marriage was passed by the state legislature, and then overturned by the referendum. I don't see the government imposing morality, rather, it seems more that it is enforcing the morality that the majority decided upon.

Laws should be made on the bases of whether an action would be detrimental to society

But what is "Society"? It's not a tangible object, that can be pointed to and measured. I don't have a concrete definition myself, but I would have to start looking into some sort of aggregate of all personal opinions within a given area. From there, it isn't that hard to stretch into legalization against behavior deemed too far outside the norm.

For example, take animal rights. I'm not allowed to go to a pet store, buy a puppy, drag him outside, and boil him alive. Why not? It's not hurting anyone, (except the puppy, but I don't think society takes into account the thoughts of animals), and maybe anyone who happens to be walking by and is disgusted by my actions. But "society" has judged (quite rightly, in my view) that the sort of person who would boil a puppy alive in public isn't the sort of person that they want out and about.

So I don't really see your point about "Detrimental to society" being the basis for allowable behavior.

[superluser]

I think both Vidar and Corgatha Taldorthar might find this video interesting:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/grittv-frank-schaeffer-fears-fundamentalis

It's an interview with a man who left the Christian Right after he got terrified by the extremism of the group that he helped form, and it's about the role of religion in democracy.

Also:

Of course it would be leftist, but I see any sort of government that is brought about the sort of lines of "If you disagree with this progressive agenda, you are WRONG and cannot legislate thus, even if your entire constituency backs you", smacks of fascism. If there is some sort of term that covers this kind of government, please, inform me, and we can discuss without issues of semantics clouding things.

Pol Pot, perhaps? (Not that Pol Pot was a leftist)

[Vidar]

In a pure democracy, you would be right, but America is a democratic republic. People choose who their leaders are, and the leaders are supposed to make the law based on secular reasoning. This construct is there to avoid turning bigotry and religion into law.

So, for purposes of clarification, is it your view that referendums should be categorically banned, because it cuts out the link of the elected representative?

No. Referendum's have their place in particular situations where it isn't immediately clear whether a portion of the populace would be negatively impacted by a proposed law.
The anti-gay marriage law doesn't warrant a referendum. It's clear that this law has a negative impact on a portion of the populace (aka, homosexuals), and it doesn't provide any positive benefits.

I suppose one could make the argument that the populace at large isn't qualified to legislate, but the only reasoning that is supposed to be behind a legislator's decisionmaking is the constitution, which itself draws it's authority from "We the people". I realize the representative vs authoritative legislator debate has been around for a while. (Do I do what you say you want, or what I think you should want?), but ultimately, referendums cut out the middlemen. Any position can be reached simply by voting out of office any legislator who runs contrary to the popular will, and making enough amendments to previous  laws.

The populace at large isn't qualified to legislate. For one, lawmakers should have a sound understanding of the current law, and Joe Sixpack doesn't have a law degree. There are plenty of other reasons why the populace shouldn't be too involved in the lawmaking process, but that's another discussion, for someone other than me.

In that case, you have no idea what fascism is all about. Go read the wikipedia article about fascism, please.
Fascism is a far-right wing of doing things. It's authoritarian and nationalistic.

Please note my words "bizarre form". I'm groping towards a concept here that I don't have political language to express. You can have authoritarian, right wing, nationalistic administrations without them being fascist. The difference between say, Italy in the late thirties and Great Britain of the same time, when both were embarking on right wing nationalistic programs of governments that were drastically expanding their power, is that the fascist government cannot be overturned, and that it's ideology, not populist will, is what drives the legislative machine.

Of course it would be leftist, but I see any sort of government that is brought about the sort of lines of "If you disagree with this progressive agenda, you are WRONG and cannot legislate thus, even if your entire constituency backs you", smacks of fascism. If there is some sort of term that covers this kind of government, please, inform me, and we can discuss without issues of semantics clouding things.

In this case the 'fascist' label is immensely misplaced. In fascism everyone serves the state.
In this case, the government tried to serve society by attempting to removing a law that needlessly restricted the freedom of a portion of the populace.
If a label can be put on Maine, it would be 'progressive'. It doesn't become fascist until it starts removing freedom from (a portion of) the populace for the purpose of expanding its power. Clearly that wasn't the case here.
They tried to  give homosexuals the same rights that heterosexuals already enjoy: the ability to marry the one they love. That's progressive and egalitarian, and in no way fascist.

Who told you that the Maine government was anything like fascism anyway?

Yet that's what the government is trying to do in this case: homosexuality is deemed 'immoral' on religious ground, and the religious majority then had it passed into law, effectively making everyone subject to their morality, regardless of their convictions.

As I recall, the legislation allowing homosexual marriage was passed by the state legislature, and then overturned by the referendum. I don't see the government imposing morality, rather, it seems more that it is enforcing the morality that the majority decided upon.

Yes, my mistake. The Maine government tried to do the right thing by attempting to remove a law that enforces morality. Then the "Fox news-informed' masses protested, the government caved, and Maine is back where it started.
That doesn't make it right, though.

Laws should be made on the bases of whether an action would be detrimental to society

But what is "Society"? It's not a tangible object, that can be pointed to and measured. I don't have a concrete definition myself, but I would have to start looking into some sort of aggregate of all personal opinions within a given area. From there, it isn't that hard to stretch into legalization against behavior deemed too far outside the norm.

For example, take animal rights. I'm not allowed to go to a pet store, buy a puppy, drag him outside, and boil him alive. Why not? It's not hurting anyone, (except the puppy, but I don't think society takes into account the thoughts of animals), and maybe anyone who happens to be walking by and is disgusted by my actions. But "society" has judged (quite rightly, in my view) that the sort of person who would boil a puppy alive in public isn't the sort of person that they want out and about.

So I don't really see your point about "Detrimental to society" being the basis for allowable behavior.

In this case, 'society' means 'the populace of Maine'.

About animal rights: it's not really about giving animals rights.
People who have pets tend to feel they are part of their family. The animal rights laws are there to discourage cruelty to animals, which could easily be someone's pet. It's more about giving pet owners peace of mind then it is about granting animals legal rights.

If you still don't see how actions that are detrimental to society are subject of laws, what would you base a law on?
The opinion of the majority? In that case black people would still be considered second class citizens in some places.

[Vidar]

I think both Vidar and Corgatha Taldorthar might find this video interesting:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/grittv-frank-schaeffer-fears-fundamentalis

It's an interview with a man who left the Christian Right after he got terrified by the extremism of the group that he helped form, and it's about the role of religion in democracy.

Also:

Of course it would be leftist, but I see any sort of government that is brought about the sort of lines of "If you disagree with this progressive agenda, you are WRONG and cannot legislate thus, even if your entire constituency backs you", smacks of fascism. If there is some sort of term that covers this kind of government, please, inform me, and we can discuss without issues of semantics clouding things.

Pol Pot, perhaps? (Not that Pol Pot was a leftist)

It's an interesting video, though I don't agree with everything Frank Scheaffer says.
At one point early in the interview he says that atheists tell people that they have to live without god (and that they will be all the better for it).
We don't try to tell people to live without god. We merely want to live in a world where we can be free from religion, where Jesus isn't shoved into our faces at every other street corner, whenever we turn on the tv, or at our jobs. But this is another discussion for another thread.

[Kafzeil]

We don't try to tell people to live without god. We merely want to live in a world where we can be free from religion, where Jesus isn't shoved into our faces at every other street corner, whenever we turn on the tv, or at our jobs. But this is another discussion for another thread.

That is, quite sadly, untrue. There are Atheists out there who are just as virulent, ignorant, and hateful as any reilgious zealot.

That is not saying that all atheists are anti-reilgious self righteous bigots, just that keep in mind atheist zealots do exist, sadly, and they can be just as bad as thier theist counerparts.

[superluser]

In this case the 'fascist' label is immensely misplaced. In fascism everyone serves the state.

Not really.  In fascism, everyone serves industry, and industry tells government how to govern.  So I guess that wouldn't be fascism, either.

Who told you that the Maine government was anything like fascism anyway?

Presumably no one, given that he said ``I suppose you could theorize some sort of government...'', and that pretty clearly implies that he's not talking about any extant government.

About animal rights: it's not really about giving animals rights.
People who have pets tend to feel they are part of their family. The animal rights laws are there to discourage cruelty to animals, which could easily be someone's pet. It's more about giving pet owners peace of mind then it is about granting animals legal rights.

It absolutely is about giving animals rights (or rather, recognizing the rights that all living things have).  There are standards of treatment for animals that are independent of whether or not they can be pets.  Paris Hilton had her kinkajou taken away because it's illegal to keep them as pets in her state, but if she had stuffed it in a corner and refused to feed it, she would have been in a lot more trouble, since there are standards of care for all animals, because we believe that it is not right to mistreat them.

At one point early in the interview he says that atheists tell people that they have to live without god (and that they will be all the better for it).
We don't try to tell people to live without god.

I have no doubt that that's true of the vast majority of atheists, many of whom I know personally are very decent people who have their own sets of beliefs.

Schaeffer, however, relates several counter-examples in that interview, where Richard Dawkins sells a pin that people use to proselytize atheism, and where Sam Harris actually talks about killing people who have certain beliefs (in the particular case Harris mentions, he is talking about killing al-Qaeda for their beliefs--and not necessarily for their actions).  This is what he is talking about when he refers to an ``evangelical atheism.''

[rabid_fox]

Oh just let the bumosexuals have their way already, we're too busy to deal with the whining.

[Joe3210]

Oh just let the bumosexuals have their way already, we're too busy to deal with the whining.

Are you a troll or a smartypants?

Either way, you're funny as heck.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

No. Referendum's have their place in particular situations where it isn't immediately clear whether a portion of the populace would be negatively impacted by a proposed law.

Come now, every law negatively affects *someone* from litterbug laws all the way to income tax. If you disqualify a referendum based on the concept that no referendum that "negatively impacts" someone is valid, than there are no legitimate referendums.

In this case the 'fascist' label is immensely misplaced. In fascism everyone serves the state.
In this case, the government tried to serve society by attempting to removing a law that needlessly restricted the freedom of a portion of the populace.
If a label can be put on Maine, it would be 'progressive'. It doesn't become fascist until it starts removing freedom from (a portion of) the populace for the purpose of expanding its power. Clearly that wasn't the case here.

Once again, I seem to have failed to communicate what I meant intelligibly. Let me try once again, dropping the label of "fascist".

I find it highly disturbing when any political power aligns itself with a given ideology for purpose of governance. That does not mean necessarily, that ideology should be absent from governance, merely that it should not be a guiding principle. This applies especially to democracies, who at least make the claim to represent the people governed. I attempted to apply the label of "fascist" to any state which is governed by a core ideology, so much so, that all people with opposing viewpoints were disenfranchised. Once you have removed the freedom to have a political viewpoint, or to peacefully persuade others to that viewpoint, you have reached a certain level of ideological meddling on part of the government that seems problematic.

For the case at hand, let me illustrate my above paragraph so. Allowing a clergyman of whatever denomination a place in the legislature to represent interests of his denomination, would to me be inappropriate in a government. (Allowing that same clergy to represent on their own is a slightly more difficult problem, and one I don't want to get into at the moment.) But banning an organization from trying to spread it's viewpoint because it isn't "progressive" enough has consequences that I'm very uncomfortable with.  

Suppose you say that the Catholic church has no right in preaching against homosexuality, and that a law should be enacted that bars them from broadcasting any such message. And then you take some moron who has the same message, only he doesn't dress in a robe or call himself a clergyman. If the message is the same, does it really matter who says it? They're both inciting to action that you deem unacceptable. The way I see it, either you ban both broadcasts, and thus are sending the message that it isn't ok for a private citizen to have his own convictions and to speak about them freely, or you say that the private citizen is allowed to bradcast, but not the church, which implies that it is the organization, not the messages, that you have a problem with.

Neither course, to my mind, is a positive one in our current political system.

Yes, my mistake. The Maine government tried to do the right thing by attempting to remove a law that enforces morality. Then the "Fox misinformed' masses protested, the government caved, and Maine is back where it started.
That doesn't make it right, though.

Personally, I think that this passage underscores the crux of our disagreement. If I am reading your arguments correctly, (and I might not be.) it seems to be that were it not for the vested interests of groups like churches, or Fox News, or other people unfairly promoting their brand of thought, everyone would be happily tolerant of others, and goodness and gumdrops would flow. Since these bigoted groups are fomenting hatred, they should be dissolved, or at least muzzled.

I'm not convinced by that reasoning. People aren't as sheepish as all that, just look at this own thread. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone was capable of perfect judgement, all the time, and enacted some sort of wonderful government as a result. But the ultimate body that any legislative branch has to answer to in a democracy is the people, however many steps removed the two bodies are. And when you have people making decisions, they make dumb ones.

Depending on how good of an opinion you have on the collective human intelligence, that might be dumb decisions most of the time. But who else is going to make them anyway? No matter how you structure things, some person, or group of people are going to be making decisions, with whatever their own private prejudices and preconditions are.

Yes, bad, stupid, pointless, and counterproductive laws will be enacted. It's the price of doing business. But laws do change. You mention the civil rights movement, and quite rightly. A hundred and fifty years or so ago, it was perfectly legal to own another human being, the way you'd own a chair or a bicycle. Now it's not. I don't think you'd find too many people on the street today who'd support slavery as an institution.

But that doesn't take away the right of the legislative in the 1850's and earlier to make laws pertaining to the condition. As it happened, the institution was removed. You might disagree with the referendum's decision, but I don't see any real grounds for disagreeing with legislature in general having the right to define a legal condition, and nor do I see any real grounds for disqualifying referendums as a means of legislating. "Is the decision in Maine right?" and "Is the decision in Maine a legal exercise of authority" are two different questions, and the latter, at least, is a definite yes.

About animal rights: it's not really about giving animals rights.
People who have pets tend to feel they are part of their family. The animal rights laws are there to discourage cruelty to animals, which could easily be someone's pet. It's more about giving pet owners peace of mind then it is about granting animals legal rights.

I have to admit, this argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Animal rights have little to do with whether or not any given animal is a pet or not, or even whether the specific animal is domesticated. As for peace of mind of pet owners, I'm *certainly* not allowed to go and kill or maim or whatever to someone else's pet, but that would be covered under simple property laws.

My own points were somewhat to the effect that society, as a body, doesn't want to put up with the sorts of people who engage in cruelty to animals. When you add in the effect of action upon behavior patterns, you see an attempt to alter attitudes by threatening punishment of behavior.

If you still don't see how actions that are detrimental to society are subject of laws, what would you base a law on?
The opinion of the majority?

Yes. And I realize, that that might not result and full equality for all. But ultimately, people make their own decisions, and have to be free to make the wrong ones too.

We don't try to tell people to live without god. We merely want to live in a world where we can be free from religion, where Jesus isn't shoved into our faces at every other street corner, whenever we turn on the tv, or at our jobs. But this is another discussion for another thread.

I'm not saying it's like this everywhere, but say, in France, it's a criminal offense to wear a religious symbol in public. It's most often referred to those headscarves that Muslim women wear, but, for example, I'd be committing a crime to walk down the streets of Paris in my Kippah and tzitis. (whether or not they'd care is another issue, but it is technically illegal.) And I don't have the article on hand, but a few weeks back, there was apparently this case of a couple being arrested in Wales for having a religious debate in public. I'm not talking violent, screaming "you're a heretic, burn!" argument, I mean a simple, rational theological debate. (both parties claim it never got heated.) Still, it's apparently "inappropriate".

[Alondro]

About animal rights: it's not really about giving animals rights.
People who have pets tend to feel they are part of their family. The animal rights laws are there to discourage cruelty to animals, which could easily be someone's pet. It's more about giving pet owners peace of mind then it is about granting animals legal rights.

You haven't read PETA's referendums very well.  They absolutely believe animals have equivalent rights to humans.  So do quite a few sociologists these days, especially this one crackpot in Princeton.  (Oh yes, Peter Singer, that's his name.  His writings scare the crap out of me.  His path of thought reminds me much of the 'intellectualism' behind justifying the Holocaust, Stalinism, and Maoism).

[Mao]

(Oh yes, Peter Singer, that's his name.  His writings scare the crap out of me.  His path of thought reminds me much of the 'intellectualism' behind justifying the [...] Maoism).

I'll thank you to leave me and my beliefs out of your conversations.

[Vidar]

No. Referendum's have their place in particular situations where it isn't immediately clear whether a portion of the populace would be negatively impacted by a proposed law.

Come now, every law negatively affects *someone* from litterbug laws all the way to income tax. If you disqualify a referendum based on the concept that no referendum that "negatively impacts" someone is valid, than there are no legitimate referendums.

At least those laws serve a purpose other than limiting the freedoms of a part of the populace based on an irrelevant factor. In this case it's sexual preference, but in the past things like skin color were used.
Also, most laws try to limit the negative effect they have.

In this case the 'fascist' label is immensely misplaced. In fascism everyone serves the state.
In this case, the government tried to serve society by attempting to removing a law that needlessly restricted the freedom of a portion of the populace.
If a label can be put on Maine, it would be 'progressive'. It doesn't become fascist until it starts removing freedom from (a portion of) the populace for the purpose of expanding its power. Clearly that wasn't the case here.

Once again, I seem to have failed to communicate what I meant intelligibly. Let me try once again, dropping the label of "fascist".

I find it highly disturbing when any political power aligns itself with a given ideology for purpose of governance. That does not mean necessarily, that ideology should be absent from governance, merely that it should not be a guiding principle. This applies especially to democracies, who at least make the claim to represent the people governed. I attempted to apply the label of "fascist" to any state which is governed by a core ideology, so much so, that all people with opposing viewpoints were disenfranchised. Once you have removed the freedom to have a political viewpoint, or to peacefully persuade others to that viewpoint, you have reached a certain level of ideological meddling on part of the government that seems problematic.

Who would be disenfranchised by the removal of an anti-gay marriage law?
You can still proclaim your viewpoint just as before, and the government isn't trying to make you accept homosexuals in any way.

For the case at hand, let me illustrate my above paragraph so. Allowing a clergyman of whatever denomination a place in the legislature to represent interests of his denomination, would to me be inappropriate in a government. (Allowing that same clergy to represent on their own is a slightly more difficult problem, and one I don't want to get into at the moment.) But banning an organization from trying to spread it's viewpoint because it isn't "progressive" enough has consequences that I'm very uncomfortable with.  

No one is banning anyone from spreading their viewpoint. If the anti-gay marriage law is removed you can still have the opinion that homosexuals shouldn't marry and there's nothing the government can do about that.

Suppose you say that the Catholic church has no right in preaching against homosexuality, and that a law should be enacted that bars them from broadcasting any such message. And then you take some moron who has the same message, only he doesn't dress in a robe or call himself a clergyman. If the message is the same, does it really matter who says it? They're both inciting to action that you deem unacceptable. The way I see it, either you ban both broadcasts, and thus are sending the message that it isn't ok for a private citizen to have his own convictions and to speak about them freely, or you say that the private citizen is allowed to bradcast, but not the church, which implies that it is the organization, not the messages, that you have a problem with.

Neither course, to my mind, is a positive one in our current political system.

No one is telling anyone to shut up. AFAIK the catholic church can spout all the bigoted idiocy they want, and there's nothing I can do about it, no matter how much I want them to shut up.

That's not what the removal of an anti-gay marriage law would do. This isn't an issue of censorship, it's an issue of equality.

Yes, my mistake. The Maine government tried to do the right thing by attempting to remove a law that enforces morality. Then the "Fox misinformed' masses protested, the government caved, and Maine is back where it started.
That doesn't make it right, though.

Personally, I think that this passage underscores the crux of our disagreement. If I am reading your arguments correctly, (and I might not be.) it seems to be that were it not for the vested interests of groups like churches, or Fox News, or other people unfairly promoting their brand of thought, everyone would be happily tolerant of others, and goodness and gumdrops would flow. Since these bigoted groups are fomenting hatred, they should be dissolved, or at least muzzled.

Of course things are not that simple. Things might be a bit better if Fox pundits like Bill O'Reilly would present actual news on their newscast instead of proclaiming their bigoted opinions as news.
The other news channels are little better when it comes to news. AFAIK the most impartial news show in America is the Daily show. A freakin' comedy show that handles the news better than the official news channels. It's a disgrace. </rant>

Sure, there will still be lots of people who don't like gays, but they might protest a little less loudly, and progress might be made a little easier.

I'm not convinced by that reasoning. People aren't as sheepish as all that, just look at this own thread. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone was capable of perfect judgement, all the time, and enacted some sort of wonderful government as a result. But the ultimate body that any legislative branch has to answer to in a democracy is the people, however many steps removed the two bodies are. And when you have people making decisions, they make dumb ones.

Depending on how good of an opinion you have on the collective human intelligence, that might be dumb decisions most of the time. But who else is going to make them anyway? No matter how you structure things, some person, or group of people are going to be making decisions, with whatever their own private prejudices and preconditions are.

Yes, bad, stupid, pointless, and counterproductive laws will be enacted. It's the price of doing business. But laws do change. You mention the civil rights movement, and quite rightly. A hundred and fifty years or so ago, it was perfectly legal to own another human being, the way you'd own a chair or a bicycle. Now it's not. I don't think you'd find too many people on the street today who'd support slavery as an institution.

But that doesn't take away the right of the legislative in the 1850's and earlier to make laws pertaining to the condition. As it happened, the institution was removed. You might disagree with the referendum's decision, but I don't see any real grounds for disagreeing with legislature in general having the right to define a legal condition, and nor do I see any real grounds for disqualifying referendums as a means of legislating. "Is the decision in Maine right?" and "Is the decision in Maine a legal exercise of authority" are two different questions, and the latter, at least, is a definite yes.

I think this is just a case of the government being to spineless to make a good decision, because a loud and large percentage of the populace is too stupid, intolerant or ill-informed to understand what they are trying to do.
A democracy can only function if the people in charge are actually in charge, and the people that vote are well-informed. In Maine, the case is neither.

About animal rights: it's not really about giving animals rights.
People who have pets tend to feel they are part of their family. The animal rights laws are there to discourage cruelty to animals, which could easily be someone's pet. It's more about giving pet owners peace of mind then it is about granting animals legal rights.

I have to admit, this argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Animal rights have little to do with whether or not any given animal is a pet or not, or even whether the specific animal is domesticated. As for peace of mind of pet owners, I'm *certainly* not allowed to go and kill or maim or whatever to someone else's pet, but that would be covered under simple property laws.

My own points were somewhat to the effect that society, as a body, doesn't want to put up with the sorts of people who engage in cruelty to animals. When you add in the effect of action upon behavior patterns, you see an attempt to alter attitudes by threatening punishment of behavior.

Animal rights laws are a bit peculiar. Cruelty against animals is forbidden, but hunting for sport and keeping animals in tiny cages in the food industry is perfectly OK. I think it's a subject that needs more work and thought.

If you still don't see how actions that are detrimental to society are subject of laws, what would you base a law on?
The opinion of the majority?

Yes. And I realize, that that might not result and full equality for all. But ultimately, people make their own decisions, and have to be free to make the wrong ones too.

I'm pretty sure the majority would like to stop paying taxes. Shall we put that into law?
Enacting laws simply because the majority wants to isn't going to work. Mob rule is a terrible way to manage a country. That's why there is a government: to make sure the country is running OK, even if they have to make unpopular decisions from time to time.
A country that has laws specifically to shaft a portion of the populace based on something completely arbitrary is not running OK.

We don't try to tell people to live without god. We merely want to live in a world where we can be free from religion, where Jesus isn't shoved into our faces at every other street corner, whenever we turn on the tv, or at our jobs. But this is another discussion for another thread.

I'm not saying it's like this everywhere, but say, in France, it's a criminal offense to wear a religious symbol in public. It's most often referred to those headscarves that Muslim women wear, but, for example, I'd be committing a crime to walk down the streets of Paris in my Kippah and tzitis. (whether or not they'd care is another issue, but it is technically illegal.) And I don't have the article on hand, but a few weeks back, there was apparently this case of a couple being arrested in Wales for having a religious debate in public. I'm not talking violent, screaming "you're a heretic, burn!" argument, I mean a simple, rational theological debate. (both parties claim it never got heated.) Still, it's apparently "inappropriate".

Wrong.
In France it's forbidden to wear overly conspicuous religious symbols in government-run primary and secondary schools.
You can wear all the religious stuff you want in public, and the cops can't touch you for it. You will just be stopped at the door of a government-run school.
Of course there are plenty of schools that are not run by the government, so you can send your kids there, and wear whatever religious symbols that school allows.
This law was enacted in 2004 and was considered extremely controversial.
AFAIK no-one was arrested for wearing a religious symbol while walking the streets of Paris for doing so.
Before making claims like the one you just did, please do your research. A google-search for "France religious symbols" is all it takes.

You haven't read PETA's referendums very well. 

PETA is a bunch of nut-jobs, and I don't pay attention to their crazed ramblings. *ducks*

[superluser]

Corgatha Taldorthar, why do you hate gay marriage?

Corgatha Taldorthar, your silence will only incriminate you further.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Corgatha Taldorthar, why do you hate gay marriage?

Corgatha Taldorthar, your silence will only incriminate you further.

I hope your second second statement was a joke.

As for the first, I don't hate gay marriage. What I do hate is the newscasts I've been seeing since proposition 8 back in California, on the same issue. You've probably seen them too, "oh no, why did the referendum fail? It must be the work of those evil homophobic bigots in the church and in the media."

Referendums are asking the polity of their opinion about an issue. The polity was asked, and they answered. Live with it. If you don't like the ruling, bring it up again. There's no law that I'm aware of saying that you cannot repeal referendums, or bring up a point for legislative action again after losing a round.

Maybe I'm reading into a sentiment that wasn't there, but I'm getting a whiff of "It's such a shame people in Maine and California and America in general are too stupid and  misinformed to have voted the right way on these referendums." 

Ever really try to change someone's opinion by say, an internet debate? Let's all be honest here. Nobody who actually writes in this thread is going to have an epiphany based on the remarks from the other side of the argument. I'm in here because I'm somewhat contrarian and trigger happy, for whatever bizarre psychological triggers exist in my own mind. I'm not really sure why the rest of you are, but I'm guessing a chance to make a point, more for the readers of this thread than the writers.

And that's with someone you've interacted with, and (sort of) know. A television advertisement, or a radio cast? One level more anonymous. I have a hard time believing anyone, even someone with only a vague opinion on any matter, has been swayed by a televised newscast of the sort that were flooding into Maine before the referendum. And with issues like gay marriage, do you really think the people listening to these ads had no preconceived notions either way?

And so, I find all these soapboxers who go up and decry the "big interest poisoning the minds of the sheeple" behind *any* vote that went down the other way annoying, and rather wrongheaded.

Vidar, I'll respond to you more thoroughly when I have more time to do so. This was posted in haste.

[Mao]

Corgatha Taldorthar, why do you hate gay marriage?

Corgatha Taldorthar, your silence will only incriminate you further.

Bit of a Simpsons fan, I take it? 

[superluser]

Corgatha Taldorthar, why do you hate gay marriage?

Corgatha Taldorthar, your silence will only incriminate you further.

Bit of a Simpsons fan, I take it? 

And how!

(Looks like I should have included the final phrase: "No, Corgatha Taldorthar, don't take your homophobic anger out on me.  Get back!  Get back!  Corg -- Corgatha Taldorthar -- nooo!")

[Dekari]

You haven't read PETA's referendums very well. 

PETA is a bunch of nut-jobs, and I don't pay attention to their crazed ramblings. *ducks*

Man, what's with all the hate about the "People Eat Tasty Animals" group.  All we do is find tasty ways to prepare all sorts of animals for the rest of you to enjoy.  What's so wrong about that?

[Escher]

You haven't read PETA's referendums very well. 

PETA is a bunch of nut-jobs, and I don't pay attention to their crazed ramblings. *ducks*

I dunno. I feel like I can understand where PeTA's coming from -- I mean, some places out there are horrendous when it comes to animal treatment -- but I'd say that they're going about the wrong way to solving these problems. Or taking it a step or ten too far or too quickly.

[superluser]

I dunno. I feel like I can understand where PeTA's coming from -- I mean, some places out there are horrendous when it comes to animal treatment -- but I'd say that they're going about the wrong way to solving these problems. Or taking it a step or ten too far or too quickly.

There are actual animal rights groups out there.  The ASPCA and the Humane Society, for example.  PETA, on the other hand, advocates vegetarianism and wants to prevent people from owning pets.  They are not a mainstream group (but you knew that, I'm sure).

(Addendum: Well, maybe not the HSUS, anymore.  It's certainly a biased source, but at the very least, you still have the ASPCA.)