InannaWhimsey
Health Benefits of Human Rights
Posted on: 11/26/2009 10:07
Congratulations to Washington State, USA, for joining with the Great Work that is the World:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Referendum_71_(2009)
Most of the time, I am finding that these advancements now happen quietly. They are SO mainstream.
There are always ways around the fear-based minority. Perhaps that is one of the Great Advancements of our age...
Just a Self-writing poem,
Inannawhimsey
- Login or register to post comments
- Add new comment
Comments
Goodskeptic
It's tragic that groups like
Posted on: 11/26/2009 10:19
It's tragic that groups like "Protect Marriage Washington", and countless individuals in America actually believe that they have some "right by majority" power to decide to whom and when constitutional rights will be applied to fellow citizens.
In any event, it's good to see that, however slim, a majority of citizens are waking up.
InannaWhimsey
Goodskeptic wrote: It's
Posted on: 11/26/2009 17:12
It's tragic that groups like "Protect Marriage Washington", and countless individuals in America actually believe that they have some "right by majority" power to decide to whom and when constitutional rights will be applied to fellow citizens.
In any event, it's good to see that, however slim, a majority of citizens are waking up.
What boggles my mind is that, ok, I understand sombunall people's need to protect their idea of marriage...so when this referendum came up, with its intentional not using of the term marriage, there were still people like the Pastor at a church my wife goes to who was telling his congregation to vote against it, giving a pamphlet out as to the "why"...and it wasn't even a pamphlet put out by him, but by another organization -- I would love to wave a wand and give that Pastor "absolute self-knowledge" and watch the tears and grief come, followed, of course, by the healing...
Just a Self-writing poem,
Inannawhimsey
Goodskeptic
Beshpin wrote: Too bad that
Posted on: 11/27/2009 10:55
Too bad that you didn't chime in with this kind of approval when maine repealled their gay marriage bill. But then, I guess if you think the system only works one way, you might have to admit to being a hypocrite every now and then.
I'm not familiar with what happened in Maine. Did they have a referendum and vote to deny marriage for gays? If so, then they violated their consitution and acted unjustly. It's not a complicated concept. Regardless of what you, and many "believe", democracy is not, nor was ever meant to be a "tyrnanny by majority"; through which some individuals can deny inalienable rights to some other group of individuals.
The only "rights" enshrined in the constitution are negative political rights -- which emanate from a philosophy of liberty.
Answer me this Beshpin: do you, as a single individual, have the authority or power to limit the actions of other individuals around you? Can you personally deny someone the ability to engage in a marriage contract with another individual? I thought not. Therefore, how is it you can empower your representatives in government to act with powers you yourself do not have? I argue that you have no just or rational basis on which you can empower others with powers you yourself do not possess.
jon71
In the 1967 Supreme court
Posted on: 11/29/2009 07:04
In the 1967 Supreme court case Loving v. Virginia the Supreme court recognized that marriage is a civil right. The principal at work here is that basic rights are not (at least should not be) subject to popular opinion. If you want to practice a religion it isn't voted on whether or not your religion is popular enough to be accepted. Unless it's something where the state has a compelling reason to intervene (human sacrifice, child sexual abuse) it's something you're free to do. Likewise free speech. No one votes on whether or not you can say something and unless you're yelling fire in a crowded theater or selling kiddie porn or state military secrets, it's simply your own right. Marriage should be the same. As long as it's consensting adults the law should treat everyone equally. Gender and sexual orientation should not be a consideration any more than race or religion are. You can never justify saying demographic group A has these rights under the law but demographic group B has more or fewer rights under the law.