I thought your response was exceptionally well-written. Very clear and down-to-earth.
On Nov 27, 1:58 pm, "~JP~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is my response to a comment from a blog: > > The blog - Irony, fromhttp://reputo-quod-sentio.blogspot.com/ > (Feel free to comment on his, but please don't bombard him with > insults and say you found his blog because of me). > > I cannot help but find some amusement at the reaction among liberals > at California's ban on gay marriage. They are collectively outraged! I > find it ironic that a group that champions democracy - majority (mob) > rule - suddenly doesn't like it very much when the majority disagrees > with them. > > This is the danger our Founding Fathers saw in democracy - in a > democracy the rights of a minority can be 'legally' denied with no > limit on how far those restrictions can go. > > What is sad is that, rather than realize that the only legitimate > function of government is to protect rights that already exist and not > to grant rights at its discretion and begin to demand such a > government, these people will seek to subvert the very form of > government they champion using the courts. They must do this because > if they acknowledge that their rights do not come from the government > but are, in fact, inherent in being a rational, volitional human > being, it undermines their belief that a government has the authority > to create unnatural rights such as housing, health care, education, > etc. > > ============================================================ > My response - > I'm not sure how you define "Liberals", but I consider myself one. I > highly doubt many people of a progressive or liberal nature would ever > champion mob rule!! That is completely contradictory to the nature of > progressive issues as I understand them. If anything, Libertarians > tend to be of the "51%" mindset, wherein the majority speaks and the > majority rules, which silences or marginalizes the minority. This is > the view espoused by columnists such as Jacob Sullum of Reason > magazine and Steve Chapman, both of whom are reliably libertarian > leaning. > > I agree that the Founding Fathers did not intend for a true democracy > to flourish and that's why we have a democratic republic. Of course, > most folks use 'democracy' as the colloquial shorthand to describe the > American system of gov't. > > Using the courts is not 'subverting' our form of gov't; the courts > exist partly for this reason. That's why we have 3 branches, the > legislative & executive are not the end-all-be-all. Do you think we > should have put civil rights for Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, > women, etc. up to a majority vote in the day & age when those > struggles were going on? > > Lastly, I don't find anything unnatural about the rights you describe > - a roof over one's head (housing), education, health care, the > pursuit of happiness - that was enumerated in the Declaration of > Independence - and a form of happiness is certainly MARRIAGE. How to > obtain those rights and to what degree they should be provided is up > for debate. Those are all at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs > and are quite necessary for a rational, volitional human being to > function. Our road-building, police protection, and fire protection > are already socialized, extending it to health care is not much of a > stretch. The entire postal service would be a better candidate for > complete privatization instead of healthcare. Equating profits with > lack of treatment as the insurance companies have done is one of the > most immoral things about capitalist healthcare, and you don't have to > watch "Sicko" to realize that! > > But let me get back to my point, which was prop. 8 and gay marriage. > It's immoral and unethical - and eventually will be illegal - to deny > rights for homosexuals given (or inherent) for heterosexual people. To > deny those rights for a person's quality that he/she is born with, > much like skin color, race, gender, etc - all of which are protected > against federal discrimination is immoral and unethical. Calling them > 'civil unions' instead of marriage just creates a Separate But Equal > position, and we all know how well that turned out in the early 20th > century! > > I'm not sure if you're coming from a religious background as I'm > definitely not, but what flabbergasts & bewilders me about the whole > opposition to gay rights is confusing what is legal & moral vs. > whether religions will be "forced" to accept homosexuals and conduct > gay marriages. Of course churches/mosques/temples won't be coerced to > do that; it wouldn't hold up to a legal challenge. All homosexuals > want is equal protection and equal rights under the law, the same that > heteros have. And I'm very fortunate for those rights & protections, > but it's despicable that my gay friends don't share in them. > ~JP --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
