NYTimes: "Strong Support Found for Ban on Gay Marriage"

[David Floyd]

marriage is a mental, spiritual, and emotional union of a man and a woman and is thus on an entirely different level than the purely physical act which is sex.

Maybe, but as far as the government is concerned - or at least should be - marriage is nothing more than a civil contract.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DanS

The question of both slavery and segregation are instructive, but not in the way stated by many above. Both questions were resolved primarily through a political process (or a political process at the end of a bayonnet) and in both cases the wishes of the majority won the day.

There's really no shortcut for gay rights, IMO. You have to convince a majority of Americans that the position is correct. Going primarily through the courts will not lend the needed legitimacy.

I think the case of inter-racial marriage is a much better comparison. After all, it also involved a re-thinking of what kind of marriages would be legally recognized. Let's not forget that, at that time (Loving v. Virginia, 1967), the majority was overwhelmingly against inter-racial marriage.

I posted this in another thread:

Originally posted by mindseye

(T)he percentage of the public supporting inter-racial marriage at that time was far smaller than that currently in support of gay marriage. In September 1958, in the first survey of its kind, a Gallup Poll asked white people how they felt about inter-racial marriage:

* Supporting interracial marriage:
-- Southern whites: 1%
-- Non-southern whites: 5%
(Source: The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935-1971, Volume 2, New York, Random House) .

In fact, not until 1991 did a Gallup poll find more people approving of inter-racial marriage than disapproving.

Does anyone think that we should have post-poned inter-racial marriage until the majority approved of it?

[Jaguar]

mindseye:

[Solly]

"Does anyone think that we should have post-poned inter-racial marriage until the majority approved of it?"

In a true democracy, what other means are there for determining the legality of something only a minority desire?

[David Floyd]

Why should we base laws on what the majority wants, rather than on concepts of freedom? Who cares what the majority thinks?

[Solly]

Whose definition of freedom?

"Who cares what the majority thinks?"

Those who support democracy.

[David Floyd]

Whose definition of freedom?

The correct definition, of course. Freedom - you know, liberty, lack of constraints, lack of coercion, etc.

As for democracy, do you think that the majority should be able to vote in a system of slavery? If you don't, you only support democracy with qualifications - not true democracy. And if you support democracy, but only with qualifications, then fundamentally, you agree with me when I say "Who cares what the majority says."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Maybe, but as far as the government is concerned - or at least should be - marriage is nothing more than a civil contract.

[Solly]

The correct definition, of course. Freedom - you know, liberty, lack of constraints, lack of coercion, etc.

Oh so simple.. ()

[Theben]

Originally posted by mindseye
Does anyone think that we should have post-poned inter-racial marriage until the majority approved of it?

I wonder if the trend continued...or has backslid in recent years...

[Whaleboy]

In a true democracy, what other means are there for determining the legality of something only a minority desire?

You are succumbing to the democracy fallacy. Consider this example. You are in an aeroplane. An engine dies. The pilot takes a poll of the lay passengers asking whether he should ditch or try to go on. Majority opinion very often leads to illogical decisions being taken, and leading to its conclusion, a perfect democracy, it would be nothing but state-sponsored vigilantism.

Nontheless, I suspect your arguments are based on something more than an irrational love for the consensus of idiocy, perhaps you would care to try to convince me of your position. I wholeheartedly support gay marriage, enlighten me Park Avenue.

Incidentally, the libertarian argument is bread and butter at this stage, meaning it is pragmatically applicable. Someone wants something that isn't harming others, but their lack of is detrimental to them. Seems fairly cut and dry to me. Saying "Oh well, total liberty is nice but come on, real world", simply doesn't cut it, it's not like we're legalising harrasment here.

DF: . IMO thats how the state recognises marriage now, and in that case, it is irrational to discriminate, because there are no grounds by statute to do so. In terms of religion, then it is down to ones individual religious beliefs, and if it is legalised, then one is free to express those beliefs.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

There's really no shortcut for gay rights, IMO. You have to convince a majority of Americans that the position is correct. Going primarily through the courts will not lend the needed legitimacy.

Wow, what ****ty logic. I guess if 55% of Americans think slavery is right it should be implement huh. But then again, logic isn't a requirement to be allowed to post on apolyton.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"Does anyone think that we should have post-poned inter-racial marriage until the majority approved of it?"

In a true democracy, what other means are there for determining the legality of something only a minority desire?

The courts, maybe? The Constitution?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wow, what ****ty logic.

Um... it's actually a very smart, logical post. Going through the courts on such a social issue WON'T give the needed legitimacy. Look at abortion. Same thing would happen. Both sides would be incredibly extreme and vicious while there would be no center for compromise.

Furthermore, Dan has always been a more logical poster than you.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Park Avenue

Those who support democracy.

The Constitution is not a majority rules document. In fact, it's sole purpose is the opposite- to stultify the tyranny of the majority.

I don't seem to remember the 14 th Amendment saying that there shall be equal protection under the law but only if the majority digs it.