Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I suppose you think that all laws can't be changed by it's citizens. That's wrong. The people have the right to change the laws.>> No they don't. Our country is not a strict Democracy, it is a Republic. Citizens elect representatives to make laws; they do not do it themselves. At least that is how it works in the civilized states without initiative and referendum.
Originally Posted By patrickegan The neo-com’s and their equality talk. Stalin, Mao, Pol pot, 100 million a little less equal then others.
Originally Posted By TiggerRulz >>Workplace equality? Maybe i am just confused but i did not see that topic being mentioned in the first post.<< The quote of what kind of person would want to put that on a ballot was in reference to Maine, not Texas.
Originally Posted By basas <<No they don't. Our country is not a strict Democracy, it is a Republic. Citizens elect representatives to make laws; they do not do it themselves. At least that is how it works in the civilized states without initiative and referendum.>> And you think these ‘representatives’ aren’t going to listen to the majority of the people? They want re-election. They aren’t going to do something that’s unpopular with the public. Democracy is how it should work in most cases. The people should decide. Your 'definition' of a 'civilized state' is ridiculous.
Originally Posted By woody "Our country is not a strict Democracy, it is a Republic. Citizens elect representatives to make laws; they do not do it themselves. At least that is how it works in the civilized states without initiative and referendum." I supposed when the Democrats hated the 2000 Presidential Elections because Al Gore "won" the election with the total number of votes, but not the electoral votes. They wanted direct elections. Your definition of "civilized" is very narrow. It reeks of elitism.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "The neo-com’s and their equality talk. Stalin, Mao, Pol pot, 100 million a little less equal then others." Gee, you sure told somebody.
Originally Posted By patrickegan So equality should be based upon who one has sex with? The fat bald guy is not looking for special dispensation for having sex with his hair and he’s already protected by our constitution, as are the rest of us regardless of our orientation.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Being treated equally should apply to everyone, across the board, regardless of anything. Otherwise, it isn't equality. Once you start excluding people, you're on the road to discrimination.
Originally Posted By patrickegan And with that why couldn’t people have more than one spouse? Are you not discriminating against one person’s religion? Some folks think homosexuality is wrong and against their beliefs are you saying we should discriminate against them? Who decides who is more equal than who?
Originally Posted By ecdc "Someone who believes in democracy." You mean like George Wallace? You would've done well in the South in the 1950s.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> So equality should be based upon who one has sex with? << Yes. Let me see if I understand your point, patrick - you want to actively and publicly discriminate against a group of people - "based upon who one has sex with" - and deny them the same equal protection under the law that you have? And you think this is okay because a majority of people where you live agree with you? If anybody ever tells you you're a "great american" - don't believe it.
Originally Posted By retlawfan <"I can't begin to imagine what kind of person would want to put that on the ballot to begin with." Someone who believes in democracy.> Good point Woody. It's kind of like the Prop 75 measure that people are complaining about in CA. They say that union members already have a choice. If that is so, and prop 75 gives them more choice, what's the problem?? Let the VOTERS decide, not the union bosses. (Of Coarse, they have now, and decided NOT to give union members a choice with their dues until after their money has been spent. And even then, they cannot stop the spending, they can just try to vote out the union leaders. Yeah, like that'll happen. NOT!)
Originally Posted By Labuda Thanks for the news regarding Maine wayyyyyyy back there in post 9, STPH. Nice to wake up to SOME good news, at least.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Labuda, The solution to your problem: Get on I-35 and drive north for about 1,000 miles.
Originally Posted By patrickegan That is exactly what you are saying! The majority have voted against it same as they did here in California! Homosexuals already have more equal protection and others who have moral reservations would be discriminated against but I guess that’s okay with you? Homosexuality, is it a race, color, greed or gender? NO! Then who are you to say people be barded from marrying pet’s or multiple spouses? Or NAMBLA who can deny that these fine fellow’s as they were born with the same feelings?
