Gay marriage passes the House of Lords.

[molly bloom]

But I do know that the House of Lords is not a democratic institution.

Then neither was the American system of government until after the last tranche of Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s. Theoretically it was government of the people by the people so long as the people happened to be white. When you have the likes of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond in government, the difference between that and having the K.K.K. coopted by the Dixiecrats is negligible.

[Lorizael]

Jesus. First of all, you can't argue against my claim by talking about how much America sucks. Doing so is (a) a fallacy and (b) not meaningful because I don't give much of a crap about defending America.

Second of all, the House of Lords is fundamentally undemocratic. There's no way around that. It is simply not intended to be a democratic institution, and it's not.

Third of all, Congress has been far less democratic in the past than it is now, but you can't say that it was ever not a democratic institution. As I said before, there are no "true" democratic institutions, because there are no states that give completely unrestricted franchise to all of their citizens on every issue.

There is more or less democratic, or not on the democratic spectrum. The United States Congress is on the spectrum; the House of Lords is not. The United States is on the spectrum; so is the UK.

[Krill]

Er, technically the senate hasn't ever been democratic. Democracy requires equality of individuals power and the system of allocating senators isn't.

[snoopy369]

That's going a bit far, Krill. "True" democracy would be everyone voting on everything, which is absurd. Anything other than that involves some sort of weighting scheme; you can't guarantee one representative per exactly 100,000 citizens (since people have kids and age and die all the time). The House is one weighting scheme - approximately one rep per X population, min one per state, but still districted and such - and the Senate is another, with districts equal to an entire state. Without rehashing the entire electoral college debate, it's not undemocratic to divide representation based on logical lines; it might be something you disagree with, but it's not inherently against the concept certainly.

Further, the Senate as a fair way to represent the population was agreed upon by the people as a whole once upon a time (by the various states individually, anyway). Whether or not you agree with it as a good solution, it was agreed upon as a good solution by the people - hence democratic.

[Sava]

the senate is ****ing stupid

[Krill]

That's going a bit far, Krill. "True" democracy would be everyone voting on everything, which is absurd. Anything other than that involves some sort of weighting scheme; you can't guarantee one representative per exactly 100,000 citizens (since people have kids and age and die all the time). The House is one weighting scheme - approximately one rep per X population, min one per state, but still districted and such - and the Senate is another, with districts equal to an entire state. Without rehashing the entire electoral college debate, it's not undemocratic to divide representation based on logical lines; it might be something you disagree with, but it's not inherently against the concept certainly.

Further, the Senate as a fair way to represent the population was agreed upon by the people as a whole once upon a time (by the various states individually, anyway). Whether or not you agree with it as a good solution, it was agreed upon as a good solution by the people - hence democratic.

By definition it is not democratic. How hard is that to understand? No value judgements are made, by the strict definition it isn't democratic. Whether that is good, bad, the whys and wherefores do not matter. It isn't democratic. The meanings you are ascribing to the US legislature and executive, that everyone has input into who controls either or both, is not limited purely to democracy.

Democracy just roles off the tongue better than republicanism and corporate lobbying.

[molly bloom]

Jesus. First of all, you can't argue against my claim by talking about how much America sucks. .

I'm not arguing about 'how much America sucks'- that's not even implied in my post. Touchy soul, aren't we ?

Part of the original sentiment of the Ameircan Revolution was their supposed resentment of the idea of being virtually represented at Westminster- and yet no sooner had the freedom been won, then it took over a century for black Americans and repeated bouts of civil rights legislation and many deaths for their 'virtual representation' in government to cease and their actual participation in a democratic process come to pass.

Second of all, the House of Lords is fundamentally undemocratic.

I have no problem with that statement- a chamber of unelected hereditary peers and lords spiritual is obviously undemocratic.

Third of all, Congress has been far less democratic in the past than it is now, but you can't say that it was ever not a democratic institution.

Government of the population by a self-perpetuating white male elite doesn't have quite the same resounding ring to it does it ? Yet that's what it was. There was no colour bar in the U.K. parliament- even The House Of Lords had an Indian member- alongside its Jewish ones of course.

[Lorizael]

You're conflating democratic and egalitarian.

[Uncle Sparky]

Er, technically the senate hasn't ever been democratic. Democracy requires equality of individuals power and the system of allocating senators isn't.

600,000 Wyoming Republicans = 39 million California Democrats

But California has way more black, Hispanics, and Jews than Wyoming, so 51.5:1 seems fair.

[molly bloom]

You're conflating democratic and egalitarian.

Not when a fair proportion of the electorate is excluded from the franchise by violence and unconstitutional means. I accept that in common with other modern democracies the U.S. (as a whole) only saw the light vis-a-vis women's votes in the 20th Century, but excluding the black population from participating in the democratic process because of their skin colour is hardly a shining example of the theory of democracy in action.

Then of course there were the Chinese immigrants too.... but in any case, we look to Ancient Greece as the fountainhead of Western democracy and yet Greek city states excluded non-Greeks, Greeks born in Asia, women and slaves from the process. Democracy is pretty much what we want it to be...

[Elok]

I'm sure the UK's gay population really loves its reigning men now. Assuming they didn't already.

Nobody appreciates my terrible puns

[Imran Siddiqui]

Quoting yourself because you got no LOLs is Alby territory.

[Elok]

I wasn't looking for LOLs. Honestly, I was expecting something more like a :vomit: smiley. But no reaction at all makes me paranoid that somehow, even that was too subtle. I'd hate to think people suspect me of having a real, serious opinion on British gays getting married.

[Uncle Sparky]

.

Maybe we all have you blocked? The 'reigning men' pun

[molly bloom]

I wasn't looking for LOLs. Honestly, I was expecting something more like a :vomit: smiley. But no reaction at all makes me paranoid that somehow, even that was too subtle. I'd hate to think people suspect me of having a real, serious opinion on British gays getting married.

I don't think of you that way, Sweetie Pie.

I don't want to get married to my Best Beloved even though I can. I'm such a contrarian.