Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We were talking about the role of the courts in ending segregation vs. the role of the polls.> Again, you may have been talking about that, but I was not. You're presenting a false dilemna. There were a variety of ways that segregation was ended. One way was by a vote of legislatures.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh brother. I invite anyone to go back and see how this discussion went. If you meant "vote of the legislature" all along, then it was a non-sequitur to the discussion that prompted it, that being gay marriage being voted down at the polls. Especially after I said specifically that "segregation was ended in the courts, not at the polls." At any rate, let me ask you this: if segregation wasn't ended at the polls, why should inequality in marriage be subject to that method?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Especially after I said specifically that "segregation was ended in the courts, not at the polls."> And that statement is not correct. Segregation was ended in several ways. <At any rate, let me ask you this: if segregation wasn't ended at the polls, why should inequality in marriage be subject to that method?> I've never said it had to be. I just think that it should be decided democratically, not judicially.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Segregation was ended locally before it was ended federally. Segregation became illegal for all Americans because of a court decision, not because of an election or poll. And just as states will have different laws regarding marriages, the final decision will likely be a court decision and not an election or poll. And like racial segregation, the people will eventually come around to the promise of the 14th Amendment.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Especially after I said specifically that "segregation was ended in the courts, not at the polls."> <And that statement is not correct. Segregation was ended in several ways.> That statement is correct. That segregation was ended in the courts is correct; we can of course name quite a few court decisions that ended various aspects of segregation locally or nationally. That it was not ended at the polls is also correct. <<At any rate, let me ask you this: if segregation wasn't ended at the polls, why should inequality in marriage be subject to that method?>> <I've never said it had to be. I just think that it should be decided democratically, not judicially.> The judiciary is one of the branches of our democracy. And as Tom points out, sometimes it's the one that makes sure the constitution is applied equally even when a sizable portion of the populace might wish it not to be.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That segregation was ended in the courts is correct; we can of course name quite a few court decisions that ended various aspects of segregation locally or nationally.> As I've already shown, segregation in California was ended by statute, not by a court decision. <The judiciary is one of the branches of our democracy.> No. It's one of the branches of our government. It's not a democratic institution.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer As I've already shown, segregation in California was ended by statute, not by a court decision. << But interracial married couples in California didn't have the right to have their marriage recognized in Virginia and other southern states until the courts handed down their decision. And an African American Californian could not sit at the front of a bus in Atlanta until the courts handed down their decision. And it's the same with gay marriage right now - there are state statutes that pretty much grant it, and some that forbid it. And once again it will fall to the federal courts to enforce the 14th Amendment.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That segregation was ended in the courts is correct; we can of course name quite a few court decisions that ended various aspects of segregation locally or nationally. That it was not ended at the polls is also correct.>> <As I've already shown, segregation in California was ended by statute, not by a court decision. > This doesn't negate the court decisions. Nor is it an example of segregation being ended at the polls. You keep saying it was ended in "several ways" as though all the methods were equivalent. But let's review: Court decisions: hugely important, and many of them, some of them applying nationwide. Legislative: you've provided the example of one state. Polls/popular vote: none shown. Hardly equivalent. <<The judiciary is one of the branches of our democracy.>> <No. It's one of the branches of our government. It's not a democratic institution.> It's one of the branches of our democratic government. And without it, the other two would not function well. Plus, of course, judges are either appointed by democratically elected officials, or in many cases elected themselves. But the main point is that the founders established the third branch specifically to check the other two. The courts are the bulwark of protecting our constitutional rights - and have done so many times when threatened by the other two branches.
Originally Posted By scottie Does it really matter how segregation was ended? The point is it was the right thing to do and thank god it was ended. Too bad we can't always rely on ourselves to do the right thing, especially when the majority feels threatened by the minority. DouglasDubh, I just don't see your view as being fair. You can call it emotional wishful thinking but I do hope that you and the rest of the majority will learn to accept people regardless of their orientation and let them be treated equally as much as humanly possible. It's sad we even have to go to the polls or courts with these issues but thank God we have these systems in place to have hope and change for the better. Is the right to equal marriage too much to ask? I guess so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Like I predicted, you'd move the goalposts.> No I didn't. Show me how. That was a typical one sentence dismissive-type post that you often do when you know you're beaten. Plus, as I pointed out, it was you who moved the goalposts by bringing in statutes, when we had been discussing court decisions and popular votes. You know you've been called on it, so you try to turn it around and say I've done it. It won't fly.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No I didn't. Show me how.> I did that a few pages ago. <Plus, as I pointed out, it was you who moved the goalposts by bringing in statutes, when we had been discussing court decisions and popular votes.> I never specified "popular votes" or "referendum". You did that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<No I didn't. Show me how.>> <I did that a few pages ago.> You certainly did not, but it's like you to claim it. <<Plus, as I pointed out, it was you who moved the goalposts by bringing in statutes, when we had been discussing court decisions and popular votes.>> <I never specified "popular votes" or "referendum". You did that.> As I said, you are guilty at the very least of a non-sequitur, and probably of moving the goalposts. If you meant "vote of the legislature" all along, then it was a non-sequitur to the discussion that prompted it, that being gay marriage being voted down at the polls. Especially after I said specifically that "segregation was ended in the courts, not at the polls." So we'll disagree, but I invite anyone to go back and see who the goalpost mover really is.
