Prop 8 Repurcussions

[awip2062]

Since the gay-marriage was voted down by the voters in California, some pretty yucky stuff has started up. People are calling for the burning of churches, threatening violence against Christians (mainly the Mormons) and vandalism.

Now think if it were the other way around. Think if, instead of just advocating people vote against gay-marriage, Christians were threatening to burn their houses, hoping people would pee in the gays' drinks, threatening to disrupt wedding parties, destroy property, strangle gays,...

What would be going on? We'd see the (rightful) outrage of the general populace against that. We'd see it in the news all over, with people saying how wrong it is.

[zepboy]

So, do you think there's an imbalance in the fairness thingie?

[Xanadu]

I'm outraged...violence is not the answer. For centuries Christians have ridiculed and tormented non-believers and gays BUT that is no reason to threaten them or act out these threats!!!

On the other hand, Christians should allow others to live as they believe, banning gay marriage is no more fair than banning strait marriage. What ever happened to tolerance of others who are not hurting you.

[Mr. Clean]

^^^
Honey I couldn't have said that better myself...I think you just made me strait

[zepboy]

I'm outraged...violence is not the answer. For centuries Christians have ridiculed and tormented non-believers and gays BUT that is no reason to threaten them or act out these threats!!!

On the other hand, Christians should allow others to live as they believe, banning gay marriage is no more fair than banning strait marriage. What ever happened to tolerance of others who are not hurting you.

I agree completely with your first paragraph. There is NEVER an acceptable excuse for a person to lash out against those who do not have the same worldview.

In the second, you ended with "who are not hurting you." From the Christian perspective (please bear with me, no offense intended), the gay lifestyle is an act of self-hurt. This is a lifestyle directly opposed to God's design and desire. Christian don't want to see people do this to themselves, and they do not want to see people offend their Creator. With the presupposition that there is a God who will render to each man according to his own deeds, it is an act of love to put an end to that behavior. That is the WHY behind Christian involvement in this and other affairs.

I agree that the means by which either side has defended and advanced their ideas has gotten out of hand. I think we should find a way to share our beliefs in love. We should be willing and able to agree to disagree when we cannot accept opposing views and lifestyles.

sayin'

[Xanadu]

This is a lifestyle directly opposed to God's design and desire. Christian don't want to see people do this to themselves, and they do not want to see people offend their Creator.

But its still not fair to impose ones beliefs on another who doesn't hold the same believe, so as long as they are not harming anyone but themselves.

What if gays had a religion as absurd as this sounds; that being strait is wrong because women are meant to be with woman and men with men, because we are different and only really understand each other, strait sex is only for having babies...then they want to ban strait marriage because of THEIR belief that your are hurting yourself being with the opposite sex.

That ain't fair either!

We should be willing and able to agree to disagree when we cannot accept opposing views and lifestyles.

Basically what I am saying here...Christians can still say how they believe, no matter what the law is without trampling on anyone else rights to hurt themselves if they want.

[Sir Myghin]

Yes lashing out violently is not the case, we all understand that here. But to contribute further to what Zep has said, homosexual couples, for those of us who believe that it is wrong, are very damaging to the next generation when embraced.

If your children grow up in a society where it is extremely open and even coddled as it seems to be they may get the idea that it is okay for such thing to occur. Where as those of us with Christian beliefs would not agree with this and as such would not want our children primarily, or anyones children for that matter, to become more comfortable with it as such an impressionable age. As we lead by example (or we should) I find this greater than the issue of self hurt, blind leading the blind so to speak.

[awip2062]

I know Christians whose biggest problem with this is the term "marriage". As the word has been used for centuries it means man and woman. For many people if it were given a separate name, things would be different. Personally, I think the term "civil union" to be pretty gay (pun intended), but do see the point of wanting to keep the word"marriage" meaning what it has. Changing the definition of words to mean what we want them to makes it so much harder for people to communicate because there is no standard meaning that all agree upon and each person ends up needing to define his terms to the other in order to communicate.

As for Christians unfairly imposing their beliefs upon others, gay marriage is the newcomer here. The court in California only recently gave that "right" to the gays. I put right in quotes because it is being highly debated as to whether it is a right. It certainly never was seen as such until recently in our nation and Christians feel that they are being told what they have to believe and, even, support.

I'd like to see this stay in the courts as an issue and not in the streets.

[zepboy]

But its still not fair to impose ones beliefs on another who doesn't hold the same believe, so as long as they are not harming anyone but themselves.

I agree. One belief system should not require their tenants to be adhered to by other who don't share the same beliefs. As a Christian, I am very upset that the progressive left has undermined the beliefs upon which our country was founded. When looking at the documentation written at the foundation of the United States, one can see that it was clearly intended to be a Christian nation, under God. Since then, people who lack self control have been chipping away, diluting our society through the legal system, and demanded that Christians live and pay taxes into a societal system that has turned its back on our foundational values.

So I ask, who has been imposing their views on whom?

That being said, I must interject that, according to the Christian faith, we live according to the government of God first, then the government of man second. We are called to live according to man's law in every respect, but not to the point that man's law calls on us to forsake God's law. According to man's law, I have the responsibility to express my views and desires through the voting process. This is what happened in California with Prop 8. Is it wrong to vote against gay marriage because the gays don't want me to? Of course not. Were I to vote in favor of gay marriage, I would be inconsistent with what I know God wants. This is simply using the same system to uphold my Christan beliefs, the same system the left has used to deprive Christians of maintaining what we consider a civil, God honoring society. Does this mean I am imposing my views on others? Yes, it does. Is that right? Sure it is. That is what the democratic process is all about, allowing the majority to rule.

In short, it is clear there is a great ideological divide in our country. The minority in California is upset (the vote result is evidence of the gay right proponents being a minority). What they wanted was turned down by the majority. Simple democracy at its best. Much like the Roe vs. Wade decision. I am just as unhappy about that.

So, what do we do now? Should one side be able to bypass the legal vote, and then use violence to get what they want? I think that's the basic issue we are dealing with. I think there are those who will use force to get what they want regardless of what the majority has decided.

[Xanadu]

Just as you have the right to a be a Christian and raise your children that way, others have the right NOT to be Christians and not raise their kids that way. Non-Christians are not afraid of Christians influencing their kids, they know if they raise therm right there is nothing to worry about I would be equally outraged at Christianity being outlawed as I am about gay marriage not be recognized.

BTW you guys, this country is supposed to be a republic...not a democracy!!!

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual?s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain?s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority?s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual?s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson?s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people?s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson?s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention?s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people?s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy?s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it?s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison?s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people?s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual?s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America?s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America?s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams? "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people?s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual?s rights--to endanger the people?s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Ameri ... index.html

[zepboy]

I spent more time thinking about this since I last posted.

While it think every person has the responsibility to vote according to their values, I also believe that morality could not/should not be legislated.

When our nation was founded, the founders relied on the people to self govern. That is the big difference between now and then. The people now consider themselves as the being to which they are responsible rather than the Almighty (generally speaking). While the people still self govern, we now govern according to our own desires rather than the desires of God. The result is a growing chasm between those who serve mankind and those who serve God.

In the words of Rodney King . . . "Can't we all just get along?"!!!

[zepboy]

Yes, we are a representative republic. But the administration is by the democratic process. We vote a popular vote to put people in office. We then trust them to make the right decisions, hopefully reflecting the views of those they represent. Yet even with this format, it is still up to popular vote the pending propositions where the majority vote rules.

[Soup4Rush]

my .02 is this. Who is anybody to judge what is right and wrong? This is my biggest turnoff with organized religion.. If homosexuality is wrong, than that person will have to answer to God once he/she gets there..

however, gay people should not judge Christians either.. respect is a two way street..

and besides what is wrong with a little girl on girl action now and again?

[awip2062]

The thing is, we are called upon to make choices about what is right and what is wrong all the time. That includes when we go in to vote.

We are supposed to vote with an eye to what we believe is best for the nation. If one truly believes that homosexuality harms society, well, then that person should vote accordingly, right? Or is this person required to set that belief aside and vote against his conscience?

[YYZ30]

my .02 is this. Who is anybody to judge what is right and wrong? This is my biggest turnoff with organized religion.

Soup-

Thank you for eloquently saying what I have tried to say now for years.