Gay marriage comes to Oregon : How public officials can defy the will of the voters

[StageLeft]

Sorry to inform you, but the majority does rule. It just does so very poorly. We've got exactly the gov't an ill-informed, short-sighted, mentally lazy electorate wants.

The sad truth.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: SampSon

Laws are a group decision, & we have the power to change them.

Society without the ability to hold individuals to an accepted standard is anarchy, if you don't like the laws you have options to change them.

No we don't have the power. If we did, they would have been changed already.

The majority does not rule. The govt. is now ruling your life.

http://www.ballot.org/states/Oregon.pdf

Viper GTS

Maybe you have that in Oregon, but here in Alabama gay marriage was banned by our legislature. No consent by the people. I'm sure they would have banned it anyway though.

NO consent by the people?!?! Well then, how did the legislature become the legislature, exactly? Were a bunch of good ol' boys sittin' around drinkin' late one night out by the scrap yard, and one of 'em says, "I'm bored, Hoss. Let's form a bicameral governing body, and declare ourselves the legislature!!!"

Umm... in Alabama they pretty much did. You must not know much about our fair state.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: cashman

"I'm very upset that this travesty is taking place in Oregon. It definitely is an insult to the voters and to the people," said Kevin Mannix, chairman of the Oregon Republican Party, who called for the state attorney general to put a halt to the marriages immediately.

I'm beginning to hate my party because of these comments...

Travesty?

I'd say that when any particular part of government completely disregards what the voters say and goes against the laws in place, that is a travesty. As a voter, I'd at least like to have the illusion that I, along with the other voters, have some say in the way my county, state, country, etc. is run.

That being said, it's kind of a sticky issue. I completely believe gays should have the right to get married if they wish. On the other hand I believe that we vote for a reason and the outcomes of those votes should be honored. Eh, pick the lesser of two evils. Either the voters get told to go fvck themselves and what they want doesn't matter or the gays do. No pun intended of course...

This is the real issue here, put far more simply than I managed. My opinion on gay marriage doesn't mean anything more than one vote, but the voters will must not be defied by public officials.

Viper GTS

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I like it. I'm glad so many localities have opened this issue up to public discussion. I am far from homosexual, but I really appreciate the acknowledgement of gay rights by a number of jurisdictions.

 

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: SampSon

Laws are a group decision, & we have the power to change them.

Society without the ability to hold individuals to an accepted standard is anarchy, if you don't like the laws you have options to change them.

No we don't have the power. If we did, they would have been changed already.

The majority does not rule. The govt. is now ruling your life.

http://www.ballot.org/states/Oregon.pdf

(LMK if that PDF doesn't work, Acrobat Reader is flaky as hell here on my work machine & I haven't been able to open it - It's probably my problem, but if the PDF is bad I'll find something else for you)

Viper GTS

Ok? So you can propose laws, big deal. Thousand of laws are proposed every year. From requiring breathalizer tests to start you car, to legalizing crack. It still has to be accepted and passed by the state legislature. That is where 99.9999% of thoes proposals end. Instead of showing my something that says, "citizens can propose new laws or amendments to current laws", show me something that gives figures for how many of thoes proposals actaully got past the petition phase.

I can file a request to have my court case heard by the supreme court. I can petition the UN. I can do a lot of things that will come to a very abrupt end when confronted with who is in a seat of power.

Sorry to inform you, but the majority does rule. It just does so very poorly. We've got exactly the gov't an ill-informed, short-sighted, mentally lazy electorate wants.

If everyone stopped voting, the govt. would still be in power and would still have people to rule you.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: SampSon

Laws are a group decision, & we have the power to change them.

Society without the ability to hold individuals to an accepted standard is anarchy, if you don't like the laws you have options to change them.

No we don't have the power. If we did, they would have been changed already.

The majority does not rule. The govt. is now ruling your life.

http://www.ballot.org/states/Oregon.pdf

(LMK if that PDF doesn't work, Acrobat Reader is flaky as hell here on my work machine & I haven't been able to open it - It's probably my problem, but if the PDF is bad I'll find something else for you)

Viper GTS

Ok? So you can propose laws, big deal. Thousand of laws are proposed every year. From requiring breathalizer tests to start you car, to legalizing crack. It still has to be accepted and passed by the state legislature. That is where 99.9999% of thoes proposals end. Instead of showing my something that says, "citizens can propose new laws or amendments to current laws", show me something that gives figures for how many of thoes proposals actaully got past the petition phase.

I can file a request to have my court case heard by the supreme court. I can petition the UN. I can do a lot of things that will come to a very abrupt end when confronted with who is in a seat of power.

Sorry to inform you, but the majority does rule. It just does so very poorly. We've got exactly the gov't an ill-informed, short-sighted, mentally lazy electorate wants.

If everyone stopped voting, the govt. would still be in power and would still have people to rule you.

Do you even know what a ballot initiative is? If enough signatures are collected it goes DIRECTLY on the ballot. Whether it passes or not is up to the voters alone.

Viper GTS

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Sorry to inform you, but the majority does rule. It just does so very poorly. We've got exactly the gov't an ill-informed, short-sighted, mentally lazy electorate wants.

If everyone stopped voting, the govt. would still be in power and would still have people to rule you.

Whatever. So, are you a fan of the "a Jewish cabal runs the world" theory, or are you a "U.N. and black helicopters" kinda guy?

 

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: SampSon

Sorry to inform you, but the majority does rule. It just does so very poorly. We've got exactly the gov't an ill-informed, short-sighted, mentally lazy electorate wants.

If everyone stopped voting, the govt. would still be in power and would still have people to rule you.

Whatever. So, are you a fan of the "a Jewish cabal runs the world" theory, or are you a "U.N. and black helicopters" kinda guy?

Since I'm jewish and rich, id say I'm a fan of #1 alex.

Do you even know what a ballot initiative is? If enough signatures are collected it goes DIRECTLY on the ballot. Whether it passes or not is up to the voters alone.

Viper GTS

Then it has to go through the attorney general and the secretary of state. It also states that the attorney general must make a determination of the legality of the proposal, based on current laws. It also says the legislature may freely repeal or amend any initiative in which is passes. It also says the initiatives and amendments must "concern a single subject and be simliar to reforms that could be enacted by the legislature".
Gee, so it has to be right along the lines of what they are already doing.

So, the state govt. can shoot any initiative down at any time it wants, with out any say of the public.

So, what is your point?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: SampSon

Sorry to inform you, but the majority does rule. It just does so very poorly. We've got exactly the gov't an ill-informed, short-sighted, mentally lazy electorate wants.

If everyone stopped voting, the govt. would still be in power and would still have people to rule you.

Whatever. So, are you a fan of the "a Jewish cabal runs the world" theory, or are you a "U.N. and black helicopters" kinda guy?

So because someone doesn't want the goverment to watch them pee everyday it makes them a conspiracy nut? Right...

I just don't like the government regulating every goddamn thing out there simply because of dimwits that can't think or fight for themselves.

 

[Viper GTS]

BTW, SampSon, since you asked for it, here's a complete list of all Oregon Ballot Initiatives (well, 1904-2000).

Another PDF

[EDIT]Woops, that's all states... Let me find the one for just Oregon...[/EDIT]

Viper GTS

 

[bozack]

big mistake leaving the term marriage in their laws...for everyone not just gays it should be union...oh well.

Next few months/years should be interesting.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: SampSon

Sorry to inform you, but the majority does rule. It just does so very poorly. We've got exactly the gov't an ill-informed, short-sighted, mentally lazy electorate wants.

If everyone stopped voting, the govt. would still be in power and would still have people to rule you.

Whatever. So, are you a fan of the "a Jewish cabal runs the world" theory, or are you a "U.N. and black helicopters" kinda guy?

So because someone doesn't want the goverment to watch them pee everyday it makes them a conspiracy nut? Right...

I just don't like the government regulating every goddamn thing out there simply because of dimwits that can't think or fight for themselves.

Is that even what I said? No. I was merely taking issue with his claim that majority doesn't rule - of course it does. If people wanted change, we'd vote for it. As it is, we don't. BTW, most of your fellow citizens are more than happy to have the gov't regulate every little thing in life. We've already turned over vast portions of our lives to the gov't, and the clear trend is to continue to do so - see the universal healthcare or SS debates if you think otherwise.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: SampSon

Sorry to inform you, but the majority does rule. It just does so very poorly. We've got exactly the gov't an ill-informed, short-sighted, mentally lazy electorate wants.

If everyone stopped voting, the govt. would still be in power and would still have people to rule you.

Whatever. So, are you a fan of the "a Jewish cabal runs the world" theory, or are you a "U.N. and black helicopters" kinda guy?

So because someone doesn't want the goverment to watch them pee everyday it makes them a conspiracy nut? Right...

I just don't like the government regulating every goddamn thing out there simply because of dimwits that can't think or fight for themselves.

Is that even what I said? No. I was merely taking issue with his claim that majority doesn't rule - of course it does. If people wanted change, we'd vote for it. As it is, we don't. BTW, most of your fellow citizens are more than happy to have the gov't regulate every little thing in life. We've already turned over vast portions of our lives to the gov't, and the clear trend is to continue to do so - see the universal healthcare or SS debates if you think otherwise.

And I am saying that is wrong and goes against what our constitution stood for. Having every little thing regulated makes this country lack serious freedom.

 

Is that even what I said? No. I was merely taking issue with his claim that majority doesn't rule - of course it does. If people wanted change, we'd vote for it. As it is, we don't. BTW, most of your fellow citizens are more than happy to have the gov't regulate every little thing in life. We've already turned over vast portions of our lives to the gov't, and the clear trend is to continue to do so - see the universal healthcare or SS debates if you think otherwise.

hahaha how naive. People are turning control of their lives over to the govt. because they don't know any better. They think it's right.
They can't think for themselves, let alone understand a fraction of the maze the govt. has setup to keep them complacent.
The reality of how they are living is accepted because they are too fat, lazy and caught up in THINGS they OWN to care about the state of affairs in america.
The majority is now a flock of mindless hamburger chugging drones.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Is that even what I said? No. I was merely taking issue with his claim that majority doesn't rule - of course it does. If people wanted change, we'd vote for it. As it is, we don't. BTW, most of your fellow citizens are more than happy to have the gov't regulate every little thing in life. We've already turned over vast portions of our lives to the gov't, and the clear trend is to continue to do so - see the universal healthcare or SS debates if you think otherwise.

hahaha how naive. People are turning control of their lives over to the govt. because they don't know any better. They think it's right.
They can't think for themselves, let alone understand a fraction of the maze the govt. has setup to keep them complacent.
The reality of how they are living is accepted because they are too fat, lazy and caught up in THINGS they OWN to care about the state of affairs in america.
The majority is now a flock of mindless hamburger chugging drones.

You're damned right, although I don't think that is necesarily a polar opposite to the quote you were refuting. Both of you agree that the people are turning themselves over to the government.

 

[Platypus]

cool

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SampSon
The majority is now a flock of mindless hamburger chugging drones.

what do you mean "now"? it has always been that way.

 

[Chadder007]

I want to Marry 5 women.....what can I do to get the laws changed????
Also Im thinking about marrying this bag of potato chips sitting beside me.....the laws need to be changed for citizens like me. This is Racist!!!!

/bs

 

[Vic]

I wondered where that extra 1.25% I just cut a check for went to.

 

[blakeatwork]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Oh no, the Sodomites are taking over, hide the children and cover your ass. We are all doomed

Their leader hath spoken :evil:

I'm glad they're issuing licenses personally

Hey, are you coming on to me???

If so, I'll have to 'bone' up watching decorating shows...

 

You're damned right, although I don't think that is necesarily a polar opposite to the quote you were refuting. Both of you agree that the people are turning themselves over to the government.

True. Though, viper is implying that the legality takes precedence over the morality of the issue. Which I don't agree with.
I could be wrong though.

what do you mean "now"? it has always been that way.

No way, govt. is WAY more removed from the public now than ever.
Local politicians used to actaully LIVE in the area they represent, not just own a residence and pay taxes. State legislatures spent more time in the state they were elected than in washington dc.

At one time the public opinion and concerns were actaully addressed by elected officials. Hell, you could probably even meet one with little trouble. Now, they are held up on pillars as if some roman emperor.

 

[waylman]

If a law is in place, it must be correct!

Viper GTS - you're a sheep

 

[OutHouse]

Im very suprised that My town Boulder hasnt started this yet.

 

[opticalmace]

Oh boohoo.

 

[blakeatwork]

Originally posted by: bozack
big mistake leaving the term marriage in their laws...for everyone not just gays it should be union...oh well.

Next few months/years should be interesting.

I agree... sorta...

We had a non-denominational wedding (she's Presbyterian, I'm Roman Catholic), but we had it at her church, due to the age of the building, and our theme.. (medieval.. ). Really, all it was was someone appointed by the Province to perform the marriage ceremony, and attest that there was no undue influence. The paperwork still had to be approved by the provincial court.

I think "marriage" as it used to be termed, is a fair bit different then marriage as it's termed now. I don't see any difference between two gay people (male or female) being allowed to have their relationship officially recognized by the governing authority.

I mean, geeze, next thing you know, women will want the vote, and blacks will want to be free... Down with Free Rights, Up with Oppression...