Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What happens in a Democratic society (like the USA) when the Majority's backed elected official adopt laws that a minority part of population opposes?
Does the minority have any useful recourse in these cases? Especially, what can be done if law doesn't infringe on the rights of the minority and is considered constitutional?
Is the best hope to attempt to convince the majority to change their minds so laws can be reversed?
Would you say in same cases it is waste of time and effort to publicize your opposition if the chance of altering the majority opinion is slim?
That's why we're not a democracy, but rather a republic with a constitution and separate branches of government.
Well, that's not necessarily true.
They still are not the majority.
The majority still feel that marriage is between one man and one woman. Period.
This was proven in state after state, when they brought this up for vote.
You just have to convince 5 out of 9 appointed judges that the majority of the country is wrong.
I think you need to subscribe to a different newspaper, because the one you're apparently reading does not seem to do a good job of reporting the facts. 36 out of 50 states had already legalized gay marriage before the Supreme Court made it legal everywhere, with more falling every year.
Sorry, but no matter how badly you want the truth to be different, it still is what it is.
Look at the process the gay community used to get gay marriage approved nationwide. They were a minority. It took years, you have to persist for a long period of time, but certainly change is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr.strangelove
This is exactly right. If a minority feels that a law or practice is unfair or discriminatory, you work to get more and more people to agree with your position. When enough people agree, it becomes the majority opinion. That is how democracy works.
These are the correct responses IMO. There are many instances in American society of the minority changing the majority's mind over time, and eventually changing policies and/or practices to match the new reality. Women's rights, the civil rights movement, gay rights, the aforementioned drunk driving laws, statutory rape laws, etc. Too many to count.
If you don't like something, get your people together and get to work. Plan to play the long game.
Look at the process the gay community used to get gay marriage approved nationwide. They were a minority. It took years, you have to persist for a long period of time, but certainly change is possible.
Yeah, but they were backed up by The Elite. Gay marriage is unproductive in sense of not capable of reproduction. Whatever leads to population reduction is supported/promoted/encouraged by The Elite.
So they succeeded. Try pushing a law that encourages every family to have several children.
Large jurisdictions discourage autonomy. If, say, educational policy were set in small jurisdictions, such as towns or counties, you could buttonhole the mayor and have a reasonable prospect of influencing your children's schools. If policy is set at the level of the state, then to change it you have to quit your job, marshal a vast campaign costing a fortune, and organize committees in dozens of towns. It isn't practical.
Huge unresponsive bureaucracies somewhere else serve as political flywheels, insulating elected officials from the whims of the populace. Try calling the federal Department of Education from Wyoming. Its employees are anonymous, salaried, unaccountable, can't be fired, and don't care about you. Many more of them than you might believe are affirmative-action hires and probably can't spell Wyoming. You cannot influence them in the slightest. Yet they influence you.
I think you need to subscribe to a different newspaper, because the one you're apparently reading does not seem to do a good job of reporting the facts. 36 out of 50 states had already legalized gay marriage before the Supreme Court made it legal everywhere, with more falling every year.
Sorry, but no matter how badly you want the truth to be different, it still is what it is.
There were exactly 3 states that passed by popular vote, the legalization of Gay Marriages, prior to the Supreme Court of the US ruling -- from my understanding...
Maine (Dec. 29, 2012), Maryland (Jan. 1, 2013), Washington (Dec. 9, 2012)
I think you need to subscribe to a different newspaper, because the one you're apparently reading does not seem to do a good job of reporting the facts. 36 out of 50 states had already legalized gay marriage before the Supreme Court made it legal everywhere, with more falling every year.
Sorry, but no matter how badly you want the truth to be different, it still is what it is.
Sorry, but my statement was 100% factual.
32 states voted to amend their State Constitution to include an outright ban on SSM, the results were exactly ONE state voting against the ban (Minnesota).
You can try to twist and distort if it makes you feel superior or whatever, but the fact is the people in state after state made their intentions known. Which is what I said, and which is on point with the topic of the thread.
The third is the politician who feels they were elected based on their own sense of what to do and how to vote. So they vote and act as they please feeling they have a blank check from their constituents.
It is the role of a lawmaker is to represent the INTERESTS of constituents, not their mere OPINIONS. The majority of constituents after all is ignorant of and coolly disinterested in the actual issues of governance, while being absurdly enflamed and passionate about those few things that they have been told a bunch of nonsense about by silver-tongued charlatans and demagogues. The masses of people are kept at a considerable distance from the actual levers of power in our system, and there is very good reason for that.
Yeah, but they were backed up by The Elite. Gay marriage is unproductive in sense of not capable of reproduction. Whatever leads to population reduction is supported/promoted/encouraged by The Elite.
So they succeeded. Try pushing a law that encourages every family to have several children.
The last few years perhaps, but the fight for gay rights began decades ago, really taking off in the early 80's when AIDS became a factor, and it began long before the fight for marriage (that was perhaps the last piece of the puzzle remaining) and they did it largely on their own.
If hetero families feel they are being discriminated against, which I fail to see, they are free to organize as well. But your analogy makes no sense, as there is no law encouraging gay people to get married. Only allowing them to. Hetero people are already allowed to have as many children as they want to.
Also remember it was the same "elite" that put "19 and Counting" on the air, so apparently they do promote and support shows that encourage heteros to have more kids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
