Democracy vs. Oligarchy
According to Yahoo! News, Kansas has banned gay marriage as well as civil unions. The legislature approved it, and the voters did too. That, my friends, is democracy in action.
Democracy, meet Oligarchy. Oligarchy in this country is characterized by a group of people in black robes with an apparent disdain for the Constitution as it was written. They attempt to bypass proper democratic means of creating laws, instead creating a common law that looks nothing like the written law it claims to uphold.
Democracy and Oligarchy are directly opposed to each other. Democracy, by definition, involves rule by the people, while oligarchy is rule by the few. In the imminent court battles over the ban on gay marriage, we will see which form of government prevails in our country. Do the people rule, or do the judges? I vote that the people do, but the if we live in an oligarchy, then my vote doesn't really matter, does it?
Judicial tyranny must end. Impeachment is an option; maybe soon the judges will have to face the consequences of their usurpation of power.
We're the citizens of the United States, and we'd like our voices back.
posted by jacob.thrasher @ 4/06/2005 09:36:00 PM
24 comments
24 Comments:COMMENT POLICY
Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.
The judges are appointed by the representatives of the people of the United States. They serve as one part of system of checks and balances, all ultimely answerable to the people. The system of checks and balances serves many roles: preventing one person from holding too much power, preserving the rights of the minorities while still maintaining the rule of the people, etc., etc. I'll have you remember that it was not the judiciary that refused an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage... it was elected representatives from the legislative branch.
Each branch of government has its own area: if you'll recall the political basics of the system, the judiciary interprets the law, the legislature makes it and the executive enforces it. Now that sounds like a smart system to me. It's not an oligarchy because every part of the government is ultimately responsible to the people. If any part of the government goes too far, the other parts of the government will restrain it.
Kansas passing a law banning gay marriage means very little, because the majority of the population of the United States does not live in Kansas. As I said above, the legislature of the United States in total has refused to pass a law banning gay marriage.
In any case, I suspect you'd be singing their praises to high heaven if the Supreme Court supported any sort of decision banning gay marriage or abortion or something, even if it was against the will of the majority.
Having independent judges does not equal an oligarchy. I know that in most American counties, judges are elected. A friend of my parents has seen the bad side of this: they happened to yell at some kids playing a game on the street to get out of the way(with their parent watching them in a deckchair set up on the road). The parents happened to be major campaign contributors to the judge's election. Guess which way the judge ruled?
um, neo, we are a republic, not a democracy.
We are a democratic republic and Neo that was very well said.
Lone Amigo the case Neo speaks of in which the judges in MA. overstepped their authority is just making your point. The judges overstepped their authority - what they did was unconstitutional - legislating from the bench.
What you see happening in the country with definition of marriage and revising of state constitutions is a perfectly valid reaction to that.
Neo, If only I had the time to write posts as often and as long as you can. But as MonicaR said, we are a Democratic Republic. But otherwise you had an excellent point. By the way, I just noticed you like Earthsuit. Awesome! If you don't have it already, I know of a place where you can (legally) get a free copy of the mp3 files from their second CD. Later!
Okay, if you want to be picky, we're a
Constitutional
Representative
Democratic
Republic.
We are governed by a constution (constitutional), which provides for rule by the people (democratic) through their elected representatives (representative). The resulting form of government is a variation of a classical republic.
According to some, the term "democratic republic" is an oxymoron. "Democratic" implies that the people are dominant, and "Republic" implies a mixed government with no dominant element. In this case, the term "constitutional representative democracy" would be more fitting.
One way or the other, our nation has certain democratic aspects that are supposed to prevail in our government, so while we are not a direct democracy, we still have certain democratic elements that I was referring to in my original post.
WE know Neo. It's anonmymous who had to come in here carping about it and not adding anything to the conversation other than to try to point out a mistake that didn't exist.
Well put, Neo. I find it sad that judicial activism has gone so long unnoticed. If judges deem it necessary to go against everything that thousands of men and women daily risk their life for, they are not fit to hold any place of authority whatsoever in our country.
Just be thankful that you life in the United States of America! not some other Country like Canada who doesn't let the people vote on issues like this!
very well put Neo
sorry *live not life
GOD FORBID ANYONE BE GROSSED OUT!!!!
Dang, you've completely turned me around. Homosexuality is gross(ok, yes, kind of true), so it is evil and illegal. And while we're at it, let's go ban toilets!
In order for it to be illegal, it would have to be banned. Denying homosexuals the right to be legally married is not therefor making homosexualism itself illegal, just witholding the right for gay men/women to be joined in holy matrimony, a tradition that has long been seen as the joining of man and women. Not man and man, or woman and woman.
Perhaps they could invent another term for the wedding of two people of the same sex, but the term 'marriage' has been coined for many years and i certainly hope the currently accepted definition won't be changing anytime soon.
On the issue of homosexuallity, i'm inclined to agree with the bible.
It's an abomination unto God and on par with beastiallity.
If you disagree, take it up with god sometime yo!
Saying this, i am not homophobic and treat homosexuals with the same courtesy and respect i would anyone else, but i do often wonder why so many people have issues when it comes to deciphering what's so wrong about it.
I played with LEGO when i was a kid and it's always been obvious to me that the bits that stick out go into the bits that don't.
Out + in = joinage
Here's a diagram i prepared earlier to aid in comprehension.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/Dosker/lego.jpg
But it ain't "holy matrimony". Atheists get married. And if you propose to stop that, well, there's this thing we call theocracy?
Anyway, marriage isn't a religious or holy thing. It's a legal matter. And depriving gay couples of legal rights on a religious basis is stupid. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have them in your church. But don't stop the registry office from providing them.
And i thought the diagram would help.
Good point, Lone Amigo. In the eyes of the state, marriage is purely a legal issue, and I doubt most athiest who marry make it a point to vow anything before God. But there is an argument against state-sanctioned gay marriage that's not explicitly religious. In a nutshell, marriage is the foundation of our society, and gay marriage works only against that institution. Simply for the sake of society and cultural preservation, gay couples should not be offered the same incentives and priviledges of heterosexual couples. I am not for banning their activity; if someone wants to commit certain consensual acts within their own home, I don't care (well, from a moral standpoint I care, but not from a legal one). What do you think?
Cultural preservation? Well, if you didn't notice the past few decades, I'll give you a quick run-thru:
Village People
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy
Queer as Folk
Queen
etc.
Like it or not, gays are a part of modern culture, and they aren't going back into the closest, however much you'd like to force them there.
You cannot force people to stop being gay. It's not going to happen. And gay marriage won't increases the amount of gay people, it will only make those who are already gay happier. Remember "the pursuit of happiness"?
At the expense of the family.
WTF is this about gays destroying families? This is the most utter crap I have ever heard of. You cannot enforce "family values"(biggest piece of bullshit I ever heard of, no family has the same values as another), and unlike Tolstoy says, not all happy families are alike. Happy families are happy in different ways.
How do gays destroy families? How?
THEY DON'T! It's all bullshit! You just say they destroy families and you don't say how!
Gay won't start having sex on doorsteps just because they're married. They won't convert people to gayness, and they won't go and break up families.
A family does not have to be two parents + two kids + a dog. A family can be formed in many ways. I know some kids whose parents are divorced, and they aren't screwed up or crazy. They are normal and happy people.
If you want to live by your own values, LIVE BY THEM! You should live by your own values. But don't go calling them "family values" as if they're the values of every family. I'm a part of a family and I disapprove. It's wrong and stupid to force your own "family values" onto others. And no, allowing gay marriage is not forcing gay's views on you. You're not going to have a gay marriage.
I apologize for the profanity, but, dang, this is stupidity.
Think this bears repeating:
"Homosexuality causes no harm to the individual or to society at large" is a patently false, utterly absurd statement. From a purely natural standpoint, homosexual behaviour is resposible for the onset and spread of HIV in the world (what a legacy). Of course hetero promiscuity and IV drug use will also spread it (both activities society should discourage), but, by all accounts, homosexual behaviour gets the credit for letting it establish a foothold in the world at large.
http://www.globeafrica.com/Health/hivhistory.htm is only one of many resources detailing the facts about this epidemic.
The natural toll on the lives of the individuals include higher rates of suicide, depression and alcohol/drug abuse. Many resources report these phenomena, even though it is not PC to do so.
The greatest toll, though, is the one you dismiss out of hand. It is the spiritual toll. The previously mentioned negative aspects (suicide, depression, drug abuse), are simply physical manifestations of the spiritual catastrophe wrought by realization that the homosexual relationship is a counterfeit of the real thing, empty, pale, and poor, by comparison.
Please allow a definition from Websters:
Persecute:1 : to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2 : to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : PESTER
This word is one of many that the left consistently uses out of context. The refusal to condone wrong behaviour does not constitute persecution by any stretch of the imagination.
Ooh Oligarchy, did mommy just teach you that word today? That must have been right after your bible lesson.
Too bad we don't live in either!
This is a Republic and not a true Democracy. That is why we have a Judicial, Legislative and Executive branch. Any crazy nut can get elected but it's the judicial branch that is responsible for defending the constitution, interpreting laws, and keeping the mass of idiots from voting for a fundamentalist dictator that would turn our country into a fundamentalist dictatorship.
These "activist judges" AKA judges whom uneducated conservative fundamentalist disagree with, are the ones who keep the minority safe from the masses. The judges, the people and the politicians all rule, it's not an all or nothing situation. There are checks in balances so when some politician who was elected by the people makes a law that 51% of the people approve of, the judicial branch can step in and protect the rights of the other 49% who don't approve of it based on its unconstitutionality. Just because 51% of the people want to use Jesus as our national symbol doesn't mean they can, just because it’s a democracy.
Without these “activist” judges, the police could search your house any time they wanted to. Without these activist judges Las Vegas could make a law banning churches and religion from the city limits, since it is indeed “Sin City” and void of a religious conservative majority. Without these activist judges laws could be passed that condemn war protests since the majority of the people love war. Without the judicial system the government could tap into your phone line anytime, oh wait, well I guess they can do that now thanks to the Patriot Act.
Is that really the type of society you want to live it? Remember this whole right wing born again politician craze is just a passing fad that will fade as fast as the Dixiecrats and McCarthyism. Guess who will be controlling things then? Where will all the judges be to protect you when they come for the home schooled born again Christians?
what a sad little man.
How ridiculous, Toad! You are describing what right-wing judicial activism would look like--which doesn't exist. Nor should it. The primary reason why I oppose judicial activism is not because it comes from either the right or the left; I oppose it because it's activism--judges deciding constitutionality based on personal opinion. Right to privacy includes abortion? No way! The Constitution allows input from foreign law? Heck no! It permits healthcare and drivers' licences to illegal immigrants? Not a chance.
If any judges implemented the scenarios you described, I would oppose them as well--because they aren't constitutional. Grow up and stop babbling incoherently about the crazed right wingers.
Remember this:
"Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's placement of the 2.6-ton granite monument in the state building two years ago violated the U.S. Constitution's principle of separation of religion and government."
How’s that for a conservative activist judge? This guy sneaked in the 10 commandments outside the courthouse in the middle of the night because he knew that it was unconstitutional.
I don't know what you are talking about with the other points; Schwarzenegger is the one who wants to give health care to illegal immigrants, and guess what, if that's what California decides to do it, they will do it. I don't know where in the constitution it says that immigrants can’t get a license?
You are talking about local laws that were voted on either by local politicians or by the citizens on a ballot. The judges are there to interpret those particular laws? Are you saying that if it's within California law to grant a license to an immigrant and a judge upholds that, he is an activist making decisions on his personal opinion?
Do you really know California law that well to where you can say that this goes against their constitution?
And apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you about the abortion and privacy issue, are you calling them "activist judges" too?
Toad734 said...
Remember this:
"Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's placement of the 2.6-ton granite monument in the state building two years ago violated the U.S. Constitution's principle of separation of religion and government."
How’s that for a conservative activist judge? This guy sneaked in the 10 commandments outside the courthouse in the middle of the night because he knew that it was unconstitutional.
ummm, toadhead? Does it ever cross your mind that the first bill that ever went through the congress was a bill that created the Gideon Bible society? If that's what the founding fathers wanted in the US, then what's your problem. The separation of church and state in it's current, modern interpretation is one of the biggest cop-out there is. The first amendment has the concept of 'Separation of Church and state" in it, but the founding fathers included it in there so that what happened in England doesn't happen here. England had a state church for crying out loud! One of the main reasons that the United States is here is because people who were being discriminated took refuge here! Do you think that the founding fathers put that clause in the first amendment to throw God out of the public arena?
Oops, that was the International Bible society, not the Gideon. Sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home