Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: Even though the Revision argument may have merit, it is not what the focus should be on. Proponents of marraige equality should be getting the message out that ballot box discrimination is not OK. This is the argument that should be taken to the courts. It should be made clear that civil rights are not a voting matter, and that even if 90% of the people voted to ban gay marriage, targeting a historically vulnerable group and stripping them of a fundamental right is not something that should be put to a vote.\nThat's what the courts are for, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Response: You make an excellent point, Shooter. \nWhile I don\'t feel the "voter referendum" idea should be abolished completely, there should be limits as to what should and should not ever be put to a simple majority vote, which I feel is like a state being able to cancel out the republican (little "r") concept upon which our country is wisely based and revert to mob rule.\nWhatever the majority of a state\'s populace\'s preferences or prejudices, they should NOT be allowed to put up for majority vote issues that openly contradict that state\'s constitution, as interpreted by those they elected in the first place. (I\'m speaking California here. I know in some states their Supreme Court judges are appointed--nevertheless, those that appoint them are elected.)\nIf they want to vote in new judges, fine. New legislature, fine. But once they\'ve voted them in, I don\'t feel they should be able to go around, gather a few hundred thou signatures, put on the ballot an initiative to negate the rulings, and spend scads of money (mostly from out of state, yet!) to go "booga booga" to lie to, mislead and frighten people to overrule the decisions of the people whose legal knowlege and wisdom they voted to abide by in the first place.\nThis voter initiative thing, at least in my state, is seriously flawed.
1.8