Today's edition of Why Can't People Mind Their Own Business?

AP: Texas voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, making their state the 19th to take that step.

___


On a better note, ME voters rejected a proposal to repeal the state's new gay-rights law.

 

Uh, why cant people in Louisville, Ky mind their own business?

 

Dave -

I disagree...this is democracy in action..the majority of participant voters don't want it in their state. So ifyou are gay and want to be married check TX off the list of places you would choose to reside. It isn't a federal law and it doesn't impact any other states.

 

They can always come to CA...

 

Yeah? Did you say that about the straight Texans who voted against it?

 

Wrong. A constitutional democracy should protect the rights of the minority from the tyrany of the majority.

And don't give me that states rights crap. "State's rights" would have resulted in aparthied in the US and marraige between blacks and whites would still be illegal in some states.

 

So why do we have elections where the majority is the "winner?" Seems it should be the opposite.

Besides, why, ah never mind....

 

We don't need elections do we. Just the Surpreme Court. Never mind is right.

 

So, if the majority finds something morally and socially reprehensible we should still work to protect the rights of the people who practice this behavior?

We have the third largest gay population in the country. Eithe the gays did not go to the polls or the common man believes homosexuality is wrong. Regardless, the people of Texas have spoken.

BTW, I voted. Want to guess which way?

 

Both?

 

Ok, that was funny.

 

You win the prize sir!

 

Talbott wins the post of the day contest!!!

Here's my point about the tyranny of the majority: The Constitution should check the power of the majority to make being gay illegal (it does) so even if Texas votes to outlaw gay sex it wouldn't pass a constituional challange.

The gay marraige thing is perhaps a different constitutional issue (not sure), but I think that the 14th Amendment would require that a law against gay marraige would be unconstitutional. So. . . the minority would be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Get it?

 

How long might this process you're describing take?

I do agree Darrin's post was funny

 

How does gay marriage effect someone's... life, liberty, property, privileges, or immunities.

 

It won't, unless you are gay and want to get married.

 

Ok, now, how is not allowing gay marriage effecting the same.

 

Same effect banning marriage outright would have on straight people?

 

Personally I think all marriage should be banned.

If a state wants to ban straight marriage and the majority of the state agrees. So be it.

Now back to the question. How would the 14th Amendment legally protect gay marriage.

 

Becasue gay people would not have "equal protection". They would be treated differently that straight people.