Gov. Perry of Texas to gay veterans: Don't come home.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
EVER??

He's not talking about gay rights, but about politicians appealing to our baser instincts.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


He's not talking about gay rights, but about politicians appealing to our baser instincts.

In that case I agree. But on gay rights I could see an evolution on this such that 100 years from now its merely a side issue as the majority had accepted it for so long that kids will look in the history books with equal astonishment that there was once a time when

-- Gay people could not marry each other
-- black people were slaves
-- women were considered the property of their husbands

[MrFun]

John Stuart Mill was not a Founding father obviously, but this link takes you to a basic understanding of the idea of tyranny of majority that the Founding fathers were concerned with:

John Stuart Mill


And the following quote is from James Madison in the Federalist Papers, no. 10, page 48:

"When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government . . . . enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens."

Madison believed that an extended republic was a means to avoid the danger of tyranny of majority.

In his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson said:

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."



My point is not that tyranny of the majority is bad because the Founding fathers thought it was bad. My point is that the danger of tyranny of majority has been a concern throughout the history of United States.

And it seems that today, some people have come to believe that it is legitimate to take away another group of people's rights as long as it is based on majoritarian principle. In other words -- throw civil rights out to the whim of a majority vote.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Sure. Whether you agree with him or not, he's made his views, and presumably the views of a majority of Texans (at least with regard to gay marriage) clear. Given that we're talking about Texas, that ain't ever likely to change, so y'all can waste your time in futility, or go elsewhere where what you perceive to be fundamental rights aren't treated with the same disdain.

In that sense, his analysis of the options is correct.

And before we forget how we ever got onto the topic of tyranny of majority, this is where it started.

Note that MTG has implied that because the majority has voted for discrimination against gays, that this enabled the governor to flip off gay veterans from Texas.

Of course, MTG is not saying that this is necessarily right, but that this is sadly the case. But IIRC, there are some Apolyton members who do believe that majority rule is absolutely correct regardless of what wrong can result from it, right??

[MrFun]

Oh, and while I'm picking on MTG, about his point that you will never, ever see ANY positive change in the Bible Belt states. I simply do not buy that.

If Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers and peers eventually succeeded in their cause for freedom and equality in the Deep Southern states such as bad-ass Alabama, equal rights regardless of sexual orientation will prevail -- at SOME point in the future.

[chequita guevara]

They were forced.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They were forced.

It was that "tyranny of the majority" thing.........

ACK!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Gosh, wasn't the same kind of prejudice expressed towards African-American veterans in and out of uniform ?

Yes, an excellent point, molly.



And right now, I'm e-mailing the above website address to this article to CNN.com and ask them why they have not covered this story yet. Or if they have, I'm not aware of it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They were forced.

And the federal government can intervene again at some point in the future in same way they did for blacks.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Tuberski


It was that "tyranny of the majority" thing.........

ACK!

How is it tyranny of majority when the federal government did not take away any rights of white Southerners?

Unless there is a right to segregate other people that I was not aware of?

[Tuberski]

I forgot you were in the thread....



better?



ACK!

[Sprayber]

Mr. Fun. Go to Texas and work to change their way of thinking. Prove MTG wrong.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun




Because YOU brought up the idea that the position of the Texas governor on this issue is legitimately based on the majority rule.

So, in response, I brought up the inherent danger that comes, when a majority decide to run roughshod over a minority group's rights.

I didn't say anything about the "legitimacy" of anything, diphead. Learn to read. "Legitimacy != "reality." The courts generally don't support the notion that anyone's rights are violated, other than some very left leaning state courts (Mass., Vermont and Hawaii), so there's no judicial relief in sight for decades at least, especially at the Federal level. And the voters sure as hell aren't going to help you there.

You talk "rights" They talk Evil Sodomite Agenda to Destroy the Institution of Marriage as part of Satan's War Against the Family^TM. The "middle ground" in most of the US is to dismiss "whiny libruls looking for more government entitlements" or at best the "what they do is their business (ewwwww), but why should we have to hear about it" crowd.
You're dealing with the American electorate here, and the middul Amurkin Bahble Belt 'lectorate at that.

Even people on the moderate to progressive side of the spectrum have (a) higher priorities, such as jobs, healthcare, education, national security, etc., or (b) don't really give a rat's ass about gay marriage because it doesn't affect them, or (c) if they're candidates for statewide electoral office, they don't want to commit political self-immolation by taking on this issue.

Your practical choices come down to accept it the way it is, for the indefinite future, or move someplace with a more favorable political landscape. Or do neither and whine without the slightest effect - that's the option Perry forgot.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
Americans.

Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Flubber


EVER??

I have a more optimistic view on things. I look at how the rights of African-Americans have changed in the last 100 years within the USA. Most people seem to now accept legal equality even though many still have a lot of racial bigotry.

I just look at the gay right issue and I'm pretty certain things like gay marriage wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell 40 years ago. Now in Canada and some parts of the US, it is an issue that "divides the country". Thats a big change in not a long time.

My prediction is that 20 years from now, Canadians and residents of some US states will see married homosexuals among them and wonder what all the fuss was about. The US South will still be fighting the issue but opinion polls will show that every year there is a slight increase in the number of people accepting of gay marriage. I'd say 100 years from now, you will have gay marriage well entrenched in all 50 states but there will still be a vocal minority that rail against it . It might be a lot like abortion in that sense

I spent a majority of my childhood in the deep south in the 1960's. We started out with the majority spectrum from "don't tell us how to handle our ******s" to "the colored aren't ready for equality. They require cultivating" range. Other than the Feds being willing to step in for decades, and tens of millions of people being affected, you had the problem that there wasn't really any compelling rationale for segregation.

This is a country in which some parts seriously debate creationism as a scientific construct, and in which in other parts, there ain't no debate at all. Even seen those bumper stickers that say "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" or the "jesus fish" with the word "truth" in them eating a "darwin fish?"

You're dealing with a much more deeply entrenched mentality here that is far more hung up about sex than Canada or western Europe, and that feels that decriminalization of sodomy is a major concession. I don't see that changing on a national scale for way longer than my grandkids lifespan, and they're not even born yet.