JayB

You're kidding right? Is this really how power works in the real world!? I really hope this is a typo. If not, you're better off sticking to supply/demand diagrams and Milton Friedman quotations. If the recognition of minority rights was only contingent upon their power to assert them in direct contravention of a ruthless majority's wishes, then people who found themselves in the numerical minority would never succeed in securing them. When they succeed it's not because those in power lack the capacity to subjugate them, but because they lack the desire to do so.

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document. And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve. Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them. But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document. This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers. This same bunch of white men defined the legal and moral framework through which all subsequent groups recognized and asserted their rights. Is it just a coincidenc that the drive to end slavery and grant women the right to vote happened to originate within the societies in which the same dreaded white men established and enforced the rules? The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo. Generally I agree with your viewpoints. But not here. Blacks and women fought and still fight for their rights. When appealing to sensibilities failed, both of these groups (as well as labor unions for that matter) had to resort to fighting on many fronts. Each of these groups faced physical assaults, active resistance, and frightening campaigns against them. The resulting change in laws were a direct outcome of the ruling class no longer able to enforce their laws (or their exclusion of) these groups. I guess that we'll just have to disagree on this one. Yes, the suffragettes were courageous and faced resistance and intimidation and no small amount of derision - but they were inspired by and appealing to a moral framework encoded within the nation's founding documents that explicitly recognized and gave formal legal standing to a grand abstraction known as "inalienable rights." Since you are so familiar with history you'll no doubt recall that Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Wollenscraft all couched their arguments within a framework established by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The existence of this framework, and the power of the ideas contained within it, rather than their posession any kind of menacing physical power that left the men of their time cowering in fear, is what ultimately lead to the recognition of their rights. Exhibit A is the "Declaration of Sentiments" from the 1848 Women's Right's Convention in Sececca Falls: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. " I'm sorry - but had Wollenscraft et. al been transported to Mecca or Jeddah and made the same arguments "You know....inalienable rights....granted by the Creator.... the, uh, self evident ones...." They would have been met with mute incomprehension at best, and its fair to say that the outcome would have been rather different. I'm sorry, but it was ultimately the moral power that their arguments has in the western context of individual rights, and nothing else, that lead to women's liberation. If it were otherwise, then women never would have been subject to male domination in the first place, and women's status in the rest of the world would differ quite substantially from what we observe today.

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document. And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve. Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them. But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document. This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers. This same bunch of white men defined the legal and moral framework through which all subsequent groups recognized and asserted their rights. Is it just a coincidenc that the drive to end slavery and grant women the right to vote happened to originate within the societies in which the same dreaded white men established and enforced the rules? The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

I hate the initiative process for a few reasons, none of which really have anything to do with particular policy outcomes. The first reason is that I think that drafting good legislation to address complex problems requires mitigating way too many conflicting perogatives and interests for even the most responsible citizen to ponder in their spare time, and often requires a considerable degree of specialized expertise that's in short supply in the general population. This is one of the main reasons why we have full-time representatives and committee's etc, because the general public simply doesn't have the time or the expertise or the mandate to make informed decisions on most micro issues like assessing twelve different transit options. Circumventing this process by means of a direct popular vote leads straight to the Eyemanesque retardation that has prevailed in Washington State. The second reason I hate initiatives and referendums is that it allows politicians to weasel out of making tough, controversial votes by saying "Let the people decide." If you are a politician you should be expect to make these calls for the record so that people can accurately asses your performance and perspective, and vote for or against you on that basis. "Letting the people decide" is shirking the fundamental responsibiliy of their office and depriving them of the right to have an informed decision made on their behalf. The final reason I hate initiatives is that I have trouble with the idea of a majority having the right to determine the rights of a minority via a direct popular vote. I'm much more comfortable having the instantaneous popular will filtered through a full accountable legislature and subject to scrutiny by the judicial branch. I vote no on all initiatives and referenda regardless of whether I agree with the legislation or not.

"If you laid off the post-modern language generator a bit, perhaps you wouldn't so readily confuse yourself. As I've clearly stated in a non post-modern fashion, I am not of the opinion you've outlined above at all. If the KKK, or any other group came out if favor of gay marriage, I would support that endorsement for the same reasons I support my own; it is in accord with the equal protection clause. My objection any argument against gay marriage, regardless of the proponent, is because it violates the equal protection clause. I have an additional objection to the objection of gay marriage by many religious groups because they explicitly use biblical references to support their position. 'Ergo' they are proposing to violate the equal protection clause based on purely religious beliefs...a clear violation of the separation of church and state." I actually don't think the separation of church and state is compromised in any fashion by the existence of people who ground either their support of or opposition to particular policies in their particular religious perspective. What matters is the policies themselves, not the motivations or perspectives of the people who happen to support them. If would be more accurate for you to say that you base your objection to people using bibical references to support their position on your private perception of what constitutes separation of church and state, rather than what the founders actually intended or the law actually states.

Sideshow issue. No one here actually believes that the term 'marriage' is going to be purged from the lexicon, legal or otherwise. Perhaps we should discuss polygamy now. I thought that Off's point was that since the term marriage is loaded with both legal and moral/religious meanings, that it would be better to completely separate the two so that the state was only involved in the legal side via the civil union, and those that wanted to acquire the moral/spiritual sanction offered by a particular church or faith could feel free to do so if they wished.

What is group B's 'explicitly secular moral framework', exactly? Jungian psychotherapy. Randite Objectivism. Take your pick. The point of the example is that you seem to be of the opinion that its not the specific verbiage of the law that matters, but the motives of the people who support it. Ergo if the KKK came out in favor of affirmative action, the correct thing to do would be to oppose the legislation, no matter how it was constructed or what it's effect would be in practice.

panther, two things 1) i disagree with you about homosexuality being a choice. don't have time to look up old studies but it seems that homosexuality is a genetic thing 2) is this the first you've heard of people giving marriage a different title in a secular context? if so i find that frightening b/c the concept has been around a while. if you haven't heard of it clearly many of the religious side may not be listening to all the arguments and possible solutions either. I am as agnostic as they come and listen to NPR for like 11 hours a day at work, and I've never heard the solution framed like that before either. I've only ever heard of solutions that granted gay's civil unions, but reserved the term "marriage" for heterosexual unions. I've never heard of anyone proposing to eliminate the term "marriage" from legislation and replace it with civil unions for everyone before.

Agreed, but so far the arguments against public policy tolerant of homosexuality put forth by the religious right have been supported by their proponents quite directly by biblical, unambiguously religious references. Big difference. There are many basic moral tenets, that against murder, for example, that may have come into being during pre-history, long before the establishment of religion. It's not hard to imagine that, from the standpoint of natural selection, such morality was a good idea for survival, then later incorporated into various religions later on. Is the prohibition against murder religiously based or not? Both? Hard to say. What can be said is that it's healthy for society to codify this particular prohibition. I would argue that the prohibition against gay marriage is not healthy for society because it violates one of our most basic legal and moral principles; that of equal protection. Condoning it not only denies the right to pursue happinesss that the rest of us enjoy; it also diminishes the rest of us because we allow it to continue. IMHO, of course. So by this logic: Group A consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity religious moral framework. Group B consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity secular moral framework. The legislation that they support is the same, but their reasons for supporting the legislation are vastly different from one another. Advocacy by group B is acceptable, but advocacy by group A is not?

That's an admirable position to take, but I don't think its an ideal that's ever been achieved in practice. The only thing that will stay the Democrat's hand is the fact that it would have more political costs than benefits for them at this stage in the game.

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making. No it shouldn't Like I said before, separation of church and state is one thing, separation of church and politics is another. I'd find this kind of statement more credible if I heard people on the Left getting all riled up about Bishop Shelby Spong advocating unionization for nannies or whatever.

Word. That is just a fantastic idea. If I didn't hate entire idea behind initiatives/referendums so much I'd suggest that you start gathering signatures. Failing that, those of us who think that this is a good idea should share it with our representatives via a letter or two.

There are plenty of people who claim that their support for things like increasing the minimum wage are rooted in their religious convictions I can pretty much guarantee you that these folks have not come to these conclusions after a dispassionate analysis of the best scholarship and facts, because one never hears them frame the argument in economic terms. They are quite explicit about the fact that they voting in a particular way because of a moral sensibility that for derives from their religious faith. Are they wrong to do so? They are trying to use the state as a means to translate a particular moral perspective into law. Ditto for the stillborn "Latte Tax." I can't recall anyone on the Left criticizing someone who claims a religious inspiration for supporting causes that happen to jive with their agenda. Moral or religious? Sometimes its hard to tell, and I don't think there's anyone who would argue that someone's basic convictions about right or wrong should play no role in shaping their political views or the policies that they support. Separation of church and state is one thing, separation of church and politics is another.

Think I just heard Bush announce that Rumsfeld is out in his addres, 1:05 EST or thereabouts. Looks like Chuck won the betting pool.

If you are serious and this isn't a tongue in cheek post, I think that this kind of religious belief that people don't want sanctioned in America.* I am not reflexively hostile to religion, and most of my friends are religious in some fashion or another - but I think the fact that people make a conscious decision to worship a deity that would inflict collective punishment on a society in which people engage in consenual behavior that's not the least bit harmful to anyone else is disconcerting and/or frightening to a lot of people. I think that's a shame in a lot of ways. In the case of abortion, I understand both sides of the argument, and I think that even though people on opposite sides of the issue may they may passionately disagree with or even dispise each other, I think they at least have a clear understanding of the other sides position. When it comes to gays and gay marriage, I have to admit that I've just kind of been baffled by the antipathy to them. I think the opposition to marriage is due in part to people misunderstanding what gay people want - an extension of existing rules rather than overturning them. But this doesn't really explain why some people find them so threatening. When I was reading some of the articles about Haggard and his church and the beliefs associated with it, I think I started to understand their thinking for the first time. It seemed like they felt threatened by the ever-increasing permissiveness and license that they saw in the society around them, and saw gays in general, and gay men in particular, as the ultimate symbols of a kind of licentious moral free-for-all, and felt as though the state granting legal recognition to gay relationships would mean the state actively endorsing all of the cultural changes that they feel threatened by. I don't agree with this view, and I think that in the long run, this kind of thinking is going to lead folks who engage in it to become increasingly alienated from and marginalized within society. I think this is too bad, because I know a lot of people who have been inspired to become kinder, more forgiving, more generous, and more selfless because of the religious beliefs that they've adopted, and I think that it would be a shame if the people who need some kind of supernatural inspiration to make these things happen never found the church because they were so put off by this aspect of the doctrine. Hopefully the Haggard thing will catalyze some hard thinking about these issues and both the church and gays will come out the better for it. *I am not trying to be personally antagonistic here, just expressing what I think is a common viewpoint. I'm sure that you are a good guy, and I'm glad that you took a moment to share your views honestly.

"Say, did you notice that Daniel Ortega got re-elected in Nicaragua." I was busy reading a recap of Steven Harper's victory in Canada at the time.

Hey I was once mistaken for j_b...even more efficient. Saves on letters and the precious uppercase characters...

"Hi - I post as 'Prole' on cc.com."

Been following that one. Saved by the flotation afforded by his beach-ball sized testicles is my guess.

Hey - sweet. The video linkage is in effect. Works for both GoogleVid and Youtube I assume?

Shhhhhh.

Only in the election that we held in my fourth-grade classroom.

Another cocksucking conservative tool living up to his reputation. So Carl are you trying to insult the guy or hit-on him?

Must only have one recipe. "First combine 156 blister packs worth of pseudoephedrine with..."