Deciding gay marriage as civil policy by popular vote

[Rau]

So, because it is against some American’s private religious beliefs, we need to revisit all hot button social issues that have been ajudicated over the past 70 years?

And what are you on about Koz? Where did I ask for anything to be revisited?

 

[kozlosap]

Rau, if we were to take the popular vote as law when it comes to social issues, where would you begin?

BTW - The only thing I’m on is Zyrtec!

 

[Rau]

Rau, if we were to take the popular vote as law when it comes to social issues, where would you begin?

I don’t assert that the people should write the law, or that a suite of votes should now be instituted to review or confirm the law. But the law should have the support of the people. Put another way, laws should not be enacted that the people oppose.

 

[Solmyr]

But the law should have the support of the people. Put another way, laws should not be enacted that the people oppose.

Let’s be precise. Do you mean that “laws should not be enacted that SOME OF the people oppose”? Which people? The opposition to certain issues is not rigid. It changes with time - what a surprise . In the times of Jim Crow segregation was supported by most of the people. Today it is not. And thus the laws changed. As for same sex marriage, forget it. It is a dead issue. In a few decades no one will even remember that it used to be “problematic”. And rightfully so.

My personal opinion is simple: I would like to amend the Constitution (both federal and state) to stipulate: “all laws must have a built-in expiration date” - we could argue about the number of years; not exceeding - say - ten years. If a law is still relevant, it could be renewed again. Irrelevant laws should simply expire, and removed from the books. But this is a different issue.

 

[Rau]

Let’s be precise. Do you mean that “laws should not be enacted that SOME OF the people oppose”? Which people? The opposition to certain issues is not rigid. It changes with time - what a surprise . In the times of Jim Crow segregation was supported by most of the people. Today it is not. And thus the laws changed.

My personal opinion is simple: I would like to amend the Constitution (both federal and state) to stipulate: “all laws must have a built-in expiration date” - we could argue about the number of years; not exceeding - say - ten years. If a law is still relevant, it could be renewed again. Irrelevant laws should simply expire, and removed from the books. But this is a different issue.

Under democratic principles, “the people” refers to the majority. The political process today has the potential to incorporate (using technology) much greater popular vote (name removed by moderator)ut. This of course undermines the power of the politicians, and is the last thing they would want to see.

 

[Solmyr]

Under democratic principles, “the people” refers to the majority.

Here is the definition of “majority driven democracy”: “Two wolves and one sheep VOTE to decide what will be for dinner tonight”.