Another gay man plans to sue BSA

[shortridge]

It's hardly the Obama Court... he's just appointed two of nine justices. If he appoints five, then I think it can be called the Obama Court. But that just ain't gonna happen, for any president, unless some horrible disaster strikes (a la President Jack Ryan).

[Roadkill Patrol]

As reported on CNN, he wasn't even registered. They gave him a shirt because he was the popcorn chair:

 

"A Scout Circle Ten Council official said Langbert was never registered as a leader in the first place."

[The Blancmange]

 

Blanc, No state has voted to allow same-sex marriage. Whenever it has come up for a vote of the people, it has been voted down - even in California.

Right, becasuse every major civil rights change in the nation's history has come as a result of a "vote of the people." Ending slavery, women's suffrage, school desegregation, etc. all the result of ballot initiatives.

[shrubber]

I don't think you fully understand what civil rights are. Marriage

is not a 'civil right'

[GernBlansten]

The rights of the minority should never be decided by the majority.

[perdidochas]

Blancmage,

 

Ending slavery and woman's suffrage and Civil rights for blacks, all came from the Congress, not from acts of the Supreme Court.

[Mr. Boyce]

. . can I just say I'm getting AWFULLY tired of all the gay stuff. They hurt their cause with the constant annoying BS.

[Beavah]

The rights of the minority should never be decided by the majority.

 

Yah, huh?

 

In a democracy, da rights of everyone, majority or minority, are decided by the majority. It was in fact a super-majority that gave yeh the constitutional amendments prohibiting slavery and allowing women the right to vote, the majority that passed da Civil Rights Act, etc.

 

It's always temptin' to feel that some more noble, more intelligent King or Theocrat or oligarchy should pass laws contrary to da will of the majority. It always ends badly.

 

If your position really has merit, yeh should be able to convince the majority.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Gary_Miller]

GernBlansten

"The rights of the minority should never be decided by the majority."

 

Your right

 

"Men are endowed by their creator with certian unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

 

These rights are granted to everyone, and constitional provisions have been made in order to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. And while unanimity in making decissions would ideal, majority rule becomes a necessity.

 

"When any number of men have.....consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politc, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude [bind] the rest...." (John Locke)

 

With out majority rule nothing would ever get done.

 

The BSA being one community has the right to make its own rules for membership and what type of individules they want within there organization.

 

Being a member or a leader in the Boy Scouts of America is not a right. One must met the standards put forth by the organization.

[GernBlansten]

Majority rule is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu.

 

 

[shrubber]

The qoute is:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." BF

 

A little different ,no?

[Beavah]

The alternatives to majority rule are like one wolf with 20 sheep locked in a pen. Periodically da wolf kills a few even if he's not hungry, just to prove he's da wolf.

 

Beavah

[GernBlansten]

Should minority rights be put up to popular vote?

[The Blancmange]

 

I don't think you fully understand what civil rights are. Marriage is not a 'civil right'

I don't think the unanimous Court in Loving v. Virginia would agree with you:

 

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Which also ties nicely into the other part of this discussion. In 1967, when Loving was decided, 72% of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. Clearly if it had been put to a vote then, it would not have been approved. Today, opposition has dropped to 17% (Gallup). Compare that to the trend regarding SSM: In 1996, 68% were opposed and by 2006 it had dropped to 58% nationally. Broken down by age, a majority of those under 35 are not opposed. So this trend will continue as well. As for BrentAllen's assertion that trends like this are likely to reverse, the data do not seem to support that. The US is becoming more liberal on Social Issues like this regardless of which party is in power.

[shrubber]

a bit taken out of context, but...

Loving v Virginia was all about interracial marriage and racial equality.

 

Now you know that racial equality was MADE a civil right through the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Before that, racial equality was not a civil right. Same-sex "marriage" has never been a fundamental constitutional or civil right.