Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendments?

[Captain Vegetable]

You are simply wrong. The Bill of Rights is about protecting individuals from the whim of the majoritarian legislature.

And where did the Bill of Rights come from? Majorities or minorities?

[burgundy]

It came from a compromise, actually. It was a necessary element in getting the whole Constitution ratified.

[Captain Vegetable]

I know that, man. But the fact remains that the only reason that the compromise was reached was because the larger states were willing to acquiesce. IE The minorities owe the majorities for their rights and privledges.

We have no rights outside of those granted by the government. So called "inalienable" rights are only inalienable because the government recognises them as such, not because of any true sence of inalienability.

As the government is ruled by the people through their votes in their elected officials, the majority rules. Because the majority rules, it is their decision that awards or denys rights to any given group.

In other words: The majorities give the minorities their rights.

[Damian79]

CV: What is that thing on the bottom right of your sig?

[Captain Vegetable]

Celebi. It's a Pokemon.

[sleeve]

In other words: The majorities give the minorities their rights.

Your point would have significance only if we lived in a pure democracy.

Our entire republican form of government is based around the protection of minority rights against encroachment by the majority.

[bbobb]

I don't feel the need to expound because Frog already has but I'll just say that our Founding Fathers were just as concerned about the tyranny of democracy as they were about tyranny of monarchy. If not more so.

In fact they were so concerned with that they didn't even set up a democracy. They set up a republic. Most of the forefathers found a true democracy just as distasteful as a monarchy.

[Tracer]

I don't know if this has been pointed out in this thread or not but I've been meaning to say something about it.

A common arguement for this amendment is that the 'majority' of the nation is against gay marriage. In the 1960's, the majority of the nation was for segregation. If there's want to protect the word marriage then I can not see why so-called 'Civil Unions' with the benefits of marriage cannot be recognised nationwide. Amendments are big deals, only 26 of them have been made and 10 of those were written shortly after the writing of the Consitution. 16 in the last 200 years after that might mean that there needs to be good cause for this and frankly I see this as amending injustice and discrimitory values to the US Consitution. What's next? Strip some of the rights of all atheists?

[Damian79]

I don't know if this has been pointed out in this thread or not but I've been meaning to say something about it.

A common arguement for this amendment is that the 'majority' of the nation is against gay marriage. In the 1960's, the majority of the nation was for segregation. If there's want to protect the word marriage then I can not see why so-called 'Civil Unions' with the benefits of marriage cannot be recognised nationwide. Amendments are big deals, only 26 of them have been made and 10 of those were written shortly after the writing of the Consitution. 16 in the last 200 years after that might mean that there needs to be good cause for this and frankly I see this as amending injustice and discrimitory values to the US Consitution. What's next? Strip some of the rights of all atheists?

Well, at the end of the day, can't we all just blame it on Bush?

[burgundy]

YES.