Gay marrige sae in MassachussettsFollow

haha, not really. I just don't think gbaji is likely to change much after all these years...he reached his learning threshhold at 3.

Nexa

Oh, and from past experience, I can assure that, if it had been Republicans holding off a vote until they lobbied enough people to secure the results, Gbaji's outcry to protect democracy would be "Sure. But both sides do it. That's just how politics work."

Shit. My mortgage is really late!

In this instance, social conservatives took it up the *** from the homos.

Their deepest fears and darkest secret desires have come to pass!

Um... You are aware that the majority in this case is those in favor of gay marriage, right?

The *minority* that you want so strongly to protect is the group of people who just had their voice squelched by political maneuvering by the majority. The minority is the group who don't believe that marriage should be changed.




Yes. Like protecting a minority group from a majority group. Just like they're trying to do in Mass. The majority is steadily passing laws that infringe upon the beliefs of the minority, making changes to law that the minority believes will harm them. So their only recourse is to push for a constitutional amendment that will protect them from that majority.

Just like the civil rights movement, right? Oddly, you accuse me of swapping positions based on the situtation, but it's *you* who are doing so. It's wrong for a majority to impose their view on the minority when that minority consiste of black people (for example). But apparently, it's a perfectly legitimate excersize of democracy when a majority imposes their views on a minority that you don't like (heterosexuals who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman).

Funny that...



Yes. It would be exactly the same. That the minority view should be allowed to express itself, and the public should be able to weigh in on the issue.

Again. Do you not understand which side is the minority in this case?

Oh, Smash. It's even better than that. He's arguing that a minority opinion has the same protection as a minority population.

I always have a niggling suspicion that he's just a really talented troll.

























That's right, I said niggling.

Niggle, please.

So you agree that using the majority in the Mass. Legistlature to squelch the minorities attempts at a referendum on a social matter is something that the majority shouldn't be doing?

Do you even know what you are saying?


The people blocking the amendment and the ballot referendum are in the majority. Those attempting to get those things are in the minority.


You do know what "majority" and "minority" mean, right?

Preventing others from getting married isn't a civil right.



There...was that so hard?



Edited, Jun 15th 2007 6:12pm by trickybeck

Thank Christ for the constitution!

Am I the only one who finds this amusing:



and




So. A minority that Smash doesn't agree with is a "whackjob minority" that has no right to express its views and deserves to have the legistlature use "political manipulation" to stop them. I'm curious how he reconciles this with his "tryanny of the majority" position.

How can one man hold both positions in the same freaking thread, and on the same subject even? How indeed...?


End's justify the means I suppose. "Regardless of decision" doesn't actually count unless it's a decision he agrees with as well. Gotta love the hypocisy. And you guys wonder why I constantly point out the ease with which blind liberal ideology can become authoritarian? Enter Smash, giving us a direct example.

Edited, Jun 15th 2007 6:42pm by gbaji