Barack Obamas standing with gays

[Wintereis]

I wrote rational basis rather than reason. Of course votes are the real reason, my point is that Obama hasn't, as far as I am aware, tried to justify his position. In Britain a politician using popular support to justify a political position is, as far as I can tell, more dimly viewed than in the U.S. The real difference of course is that we don't have a written Constitution with an equal protection clause. We haven't stipulated that our laws must live up to such high ideals.

Well, Fred, one doesn't use popular support as a justification here either. One just doesn't answer the question. Yes, and we know that you don't have such high ideals: British history is well known all over the world. Besides, how could Britain maintain its aristocracy with an equal protection clause, not well I imagine.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/25/134035020/...-new-world

[fredv3b]

Well, Fred, one doesn't use popular support as a justification here either.

I hate to correct you but from everything I read the main defence offered, within the Minnesota state legislature for the proposed amendment to the state legislature, was that the people should decide. The corollary of that is that whatever the decision reached by the people it would be the correct one, in the mind, of the speaker because it was reached by the people.

[Wintereis]

I hate to correct you but from everything I read the main defence offered, within the Minnesota state legislature for the proposed amendment to the state legislature, was that the people should decide. The corollary of that is that whatever the decision reached by the people it would be the correct one, in the mind, of the speaker because it was reached by the people.

Hmmm . . . well, what can i say. It seems that there is an error in one of two categories relating to the point you are making. Either what you are reading is incorrect or you are not making a distinction between the main rational of an argument and the conclusion of an argument.

From what I have seen, many various rationals were used on both sides of the argument in Minnesota and the conclusion they reached was to put the argument to a vote of the people. Having said that, the reason why the republican legislature wanted it put to a vote before the people is because it would have a better chance of passing. The Democratic governor was poised to veto the bill and the Republicans would not have had the support to overcome such a veto.




Now, my favorite hearing on this topic from a state legislature comes from my own state. The reason why it is my favorite is due to the startling nature of the arguments, the party that made those arguments, and the conclusion of those arguments.

[jbrowder24]

I would say that certain groups are trying to make it "popular opinion" as they fight for things; it's why all their propaganda now gets justices labeled as "those liberal judges" as if that's a bad thing and gets them voted out. I guarantee you the majority of the people that voted to not retain the Iowa judges did not know of any other cases they'd decided on aside from the gay marriage issue. But it used to be that the courts were seen as protecting the minority despite public opinion, so in general I would say that America hasn't always acted by popular opinion and this owed a great deal to the three separate yet equal branches providing their checks and balances. But yes, those wanting to put it to a vote of the people are ruining what made this nation great by imposing their values on others and trusting people swayed by ads instead of those who have studied our laws and (US & state) Constitutions. Obviously I am speaking in some generalities here, forgive me for that, but that's sort of how I view things in terms of 'popular opinion'.

Oh and also I didn't vote in the poll, despite commenting, because of not knowing the opponent for the will win/lose portion. I definitely see myself voting for Obama though at this point.

[Wintereis]

jbrowder24:

Thank you for your comments. I agree with you that there is often an attempt to change or establish policy by appealing to popular opinion and also to change popular opinion. However, I would have to disagree with you about using popular opinion in any way including through vote as ruining or anyway undermining what has made this nation great. Indeed, I would say that it is a manifestation of what truly makes this nation great. Every liberty and every aspect of each liberty established in this nation has been fought for, and it has been fought for through both the venues of populism and institution. Every liberty secured has been accompanied by opposition, propaganda, and great setbacks which have even included the disenfranchisement of the citizens it seeks to protect. The establishment of freedom of religion for instance was accompanied by strong opposition, arrests, protests and appeals by both sides of the argument to popular opinion. Furthermore, the freedom of religion has ever been evolving in the United States, facing constant battles. Even today I heard an argument made by a Rabi opposing the ban of circumcision in municipalities of California on behalf of the Jewish and Muslim faiths. The same goes for the issue of slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage, and GLBT rights. No freedom has ever reached fruition in this country or any country for that matter. and frankly, I reject the notion of any liberty or aspect of liberty being established without it first being tested among the people of a nation. Do you think that the GLBT community does not appeal to the people of the United States? Do you think that we do not try to change the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens? Such efforts may be long, trying, frustrating and even disturbing aspects of our society, but do you really want a government which mandates such profound cultural changes without first taking it to the people. freedom is a living thing that it is struggled with, we are both married to it and fear where it might take us.

Often times you hear the people of other western nations asking why did it take so long for civil rights movement in the United States to establish itself in actual governance? Aren't you a Free Country? They ask the same thing about GLBT Rights. What they forget is that the people of the United States are not accustomed to having the Government establish the society. For centuries other western nations changed their society in order to conform to the dictates of their Government. Think of the Establishment of the Church of England by King Henry and Queen Elizabeth. That was definitely not voted upon by the people of England. Many died as a result. Armadas were launched over it and the people who died to defend the newly established Church of England had no say in what their religion would be. In some ways that history remains a part of those nations. Here, far more often than not, the society dictates the course of the Government, and there have been few occasion when the other is true and no occasions when the government does not first allow for a very lengthy and arduous debate among its citizenry. I believe wholeheartedly that the GLBT community will have equal rights in this nation. and it will be achieved through a grassroots and fundamental change in our society argued through the merits of our constitution, on the grounds of human reason, and the appeal of social justice. Indeed, that is what we have already seen.

[OrphanPip]

I don't think that's really a good enough excuse. Britain and the "white" Commonwealth countries have been full democracies only a couple decades less than the USA. Really the British and American systems are essentially the same age. They differ along constitutional grounds for the most part, where the British system places supremacy in the hands of Parliament instead of in a constitution. And many aspects of the American system came directly from the British, such as Habeas corpus.

[jbrowder24]

Winteris, I think part of the problem is how we get our "news" has once again evolved. Early on, lots of press supporting a publisher's view, but laws were passed to keep things more fair (no more 'muckraking'). And so say during the civil rights movement, aside from town gossip, news was received from pretty legit TV programs, radio shows and newspapers. But since then, talk radio with personalities like Limbaugh came to be as did FOX News with a lot of commentators - commentators people take as news even when they are giving opinion. Combine this with the Internet and people believing e-mails sent to them as 'news' even when it's not, spread even more now by social media.

So yes, I think we appeal to the people of the United States... but when they're listening to Glenn Beck for their news (thank goodness he's leaving FN though I worry about people following him wherever he goes next) .... well I just begin to lose a little faith in it sometimes. What really gets to me is the radio ads NOM had in this state about the judges before the last election... had the judges here not been voted out, I'd probably be more inclined to agree with you. Since they were and I saw how money (I didn't hear pro-judge ads, just a ton of anti-liberal anti-gay ads) played a part here, I just don't know what to think. I don't disagree with you, I just have my concerns which perhaps I worded too strongly before but I don't want the trend of attacking judges, etc., to be taken too lightly either.

[fredv3b]

Hmmm . . . well, what can i say. It seems that there is an error in one of two categories relating to the point you are making. Either what you are reading is incorrect or you are not making a distinction between the main rational of an argument and the conclusion of an argument.

Oh, clearly then I must be very much mistaken and American politicians have such superior powers of rhetoric that, unlike their counterparts throughout the world, they never resort to public support as a justification.

[Wintereis]

Oh, clearly then I must be very much mistaken and American politicians have such superior powers of rhetoric that, unlike their counterparts throughout the world, they never resort to public support as a justification.

WOW, well, I suppose you can take what I said, twist it wholly and just run where ever you want with it. That's you prerogative. I suppose.

Though, if you need some clarification I shall grant it. You stated that the MAIN argument for Minnesota's marriage legislation was that it was for the people to decide. I stated or was attempting to convey at least that that was NOT the main argument in this particular instance, that there were multiple arguments involved and most of them centered on morality both in opposition and support of the bill. But, somehow, that was interpreted as American politicians never using popular opinion as a support to their argument. That i would not say. I am all to familiar with the terms "the moral majority" and "the silent majority" to even consider that being accurate.

Too, you do bring up a very good point. With one or two very strong exceptions (Bush for instance), American leaders have been quite adept at using rhetoric and oratory to their advantage: Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, J.Q. Adams, Patrick Henry, Lincoln, F.D.R. Kennedy, King, Regan, Obama . . . all very good at one or both of the above. Thank you for recognizing that. I must say, the British aren't too shabby when it comes to that particular attribute either. Who can forget the stunning poetry of Mr. Churchill or Elizabeth on the eve of their wars?

[fredv3b]

LOL, Is British politics so much different than American, Fred? Here, one knows without the point being articulated. There are two reasons why he supports civil unions and not marriage: 1. election 2. reelection

In Britain a politician using popular support to justify a political position is, as far as I can tell, more dimly viewed than in the U.S.

Well, Fred, one doesn't use popular support as a justification here either.

Oh, clearly then I must be very much mistaken and American politicians have such superior powers of rhetoric that, unlike their counterparts throughout the world, they never resort to public support as a justification.

WOW, well, I suppose you can take what I said, twist it wholly and just run where ever you want with it. That's you prerogative. I suppose.

Either American politicians sometimes use public support as a justification of a political position or they don't. You can't have it both ways.

You effectively accuse me of being stupid and ask me about political differences between Britain and America. You imply that I claim that politicians use public support as a justification in America but not in Britain and then accuse me of twisting words. I'm not going to argue with you anymore.