I also agree with Diadem's post. Really the government shouldn't have the right to restrain or aid it's people in their pursuits (unless intervening will save a human life from harm by another), and maybe that's the part of the system that is flawed that we need to fix.

*”*…shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof…*”* (complete
text can be found on wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_th...)

The only way for an amendment to actually become an amendment is for it to
be voted for by 3/4's of the his country's states. So again, no, my “idea”
does not go against how women and non-whites got votes and rights (see the
19th and 15th amendments respectively).

What you are suggesting is that the minority rule the majority. You are
also further arguing that it is okay to for people to go to court and
forcibly take what they want regardless if it will cause people's vote to
not count. Basically saying, “Hey, it's okay if those people feel like
their votes don't count as long as i get what I want” and that is just not
fair to those that took time out of their day to go and vote their stance on
an issue.

I'm not arguing if the current system is right or wrong. That's not what
this post was about. The current system is flawed and I have never once
stated that it was perfect. However, the system as it stands is the system
that we must deal with. Why should gays be different than women or
non-whites and get what they want by judicial interpretation (which is what
it is if the courts in CA rule against the passing of Prop when women and
non-whites had to work with in the system to achieve their goals? Are you
arguing that gays are some how different than women or non-whites and thus
should be treated with even more special care?

You argue that it is wrong and unfair for the minority to have to wait for
the majority to see their point of view. However, that's exactly what women
and non-whites had to do. And you know what? It worked for them. They
have rights to vote now. I'm sure that if the gays want to marry that
badly, they can get a new proposition on the next ballot and have it pass.
But they should still work within the system as it currently stands not find
loopholes that cause millions of voters to feel like their vote didn't
count.

Also, as of Nov. 4th I am in a minority. I'm in a minority of people who
don't believe Obama was a good choice for president. I am 1 of a VERY small
number among my friends, peers, and co-workers. In this case, the system
did not work the way I wanted it to. But you know what? That's the way it
goes sometimes. I have to deal with 4 yars under a leader i neither voted
for or wanted. You don't see me throwing a “world class hissy” do you?
Why? Because in 4 years I get another chance to vote against Obama, and
I'll do it again. Just because the system doesn't work the way one wants it
to, doesn't give a minority of people the right to forcibly take what they
want. Regardless if you like the system's results, you still live within
that system and should abide by it until such time the system can be modifed
and made better.

With that being said, I agree with the author here in saying we do have voting and if we want to keep people from being disenfranchised, we need to follow the ideas of the founding fathers, even if it means it takes a bit longer. My proof to back up my argument in this debate is simply the fact that this past election day, my town finally passed a measure to allow liquor stores in town. This measure finally passed after failing in 1999 and again 2006. The point is that if it fails now, simply get it put on the next ballot…and you keep doing it until you get it where you want it.

Really in a perfect world, if we would've listened to VERY smart men like Thomas Jefferson who said, “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits,” we'd be much better off.
If this would've been adhered to, then we wouldn't have had to free the slaves or allow women to vote or give blacks equal rights because they would've had them from the get go. Of course, then Keith Olbermann wouldn't be ranting about the rights of gays to marry because they would have it.

My point is that voting is the one power we as individuals have over our government and the idea is that since you can't please all the people all the time, you should try to please most of the people most of the time (majority rules). If you don't think the results of a given vote are wrong, then you should get out and logically and rationally educate people why they need to see your POV and why it's better for the majority.

But that's just my 2 cents…

My “scum” reference was very specifically focused on those that are fighting
something in court that was voted on “by the people” and how getting that
passing vote turned over would cause more people to believe that the voting
system in this country does not work. We already have a good chunk of the
population believe that their vote doesn't count. If the passing of
proposition 8 is overturned in court then it just goes to prove to those
that don't vote because they believe it won't make a difference that they
are right.

Why vote for something if it's only going to be turned over in court when
the people who voted didn't vote the way everyone thought they should. This
is exactly what's happening in California and find it to be a great
disservice to all those that took the time on Nov. 4th to vote. The PROPER
way to handle this would be to get a motion on the next ballot to overturn
the passing of Proposition 8. Since it was voted on and passed the
systematic and democratic way for those people that voted NO on it to get
what they want would be to have it on the next ballot, call a special
election, or something similar. NOT to have the fact that it passed turned
over in court of law.

The black and woman's sufferage were amendments to constitution, which
means, they had to be voted on. If gays want their right to marry, then
should they not go through the same process as blacks and women?

After all, isn't that what democracy is about?

I am guessing that if a large group of people came together and decided to vote on how you could or could not practice your religion, your response would be quite different than what you posted here. Put aside any excuses you might be tempted to make and put yourself in their shoes for a moment. The process is called empathy, and I see a lack of it from many people who share your beliefs. At least that is how it comes across to me when I read your blog.

Scum? Would you say the same to the women and blacks of this country who fought for their rights over the years? Again, I am guessing you would not. Really, it seems to me that you are the one missing the point.