Public vote on civil rights

[Bastet]

I was reading an article today, and a comment about anti-discrimination legislation (which included discrimination based on sexual orientation), caught my eye, and made me ask a question:

What is with all this public voting on civil rights???

I just don't get it... Do you think that this is right? Should the voters be able to say 'yay' or 'nay' on civil rights issues?

"If passed the state-wide anti-discrimination law would combat bias based on sexuality in employment, housing, public accommodations and credit.
The Legislature has twice passed such a law in recent years, only to have it rejected by voters.

Lawmakers passed a gay-rights bill in 1997 and then-Gov. Angus King signed it into law. But opponents forced a so-called "people's veto" referendum in 1998, and voters killed the law. The Legislature embraced a gay-rights law once again in 2000. That time, lawmakers sent it to voters for final action, and it was defeated again."

Entire article here.

 

[Doodlebug02]

I am totally against voting on Civil Rights. Civil Rights are just what it says they are, rights! Personally, I have a huge problem with letting a bunch of people decide whether or not I can have my civil rights or not.

 

[painted wolf]

well considering how well letting the public decide civil rights has worked in the past.
Slavery
Jim Crow
Womens Rights
and so on.... I don't have much faith in the public's idea of 'rights'. :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[Doodlebug02]

How about 1 person on secret motive/claim and/or proof taking away your citizenship and thus any Human or Civil right?

What exactly are you trying to say? :sarcastic

 

[retrorich]

I am totally against voting on Civil Rights. Civil Rights are just what it says they are, rights! Personally, I have a huge problem with letting a bunch of people decide whether or not I can have my civil rights or not.

Very well stated. I agree 100%. Frubals to you.

 

[Mister Emu]

What is with all this public voting on civil rights???

I just don't get it... Do you think that this is right? Should the voters be able to say 'yay' or 'nay' on civil rights issues?

Who else besides the people would you have? Leaving the bottom line above the people is a dangerous thing.

I am totally against voting on Civil Rights. Civil Rights are just what it says they are, rights!

The whole arguement is whether or not they are rights.

Personally, I have a huge problem with letting a bunch of people decide whether or not I can have my civil rights or not.

I have more of a problem with a small group of people determining what rights the citizens have.

Slavery

Yep, which amendment is it that bans slavery?

Womens Rights

Pretty sure women have all the rights of men.

I don't have much faith in the public's idea of 'rights'.

I have faith though that the people will vote what the majority of people want.

The constitution does not start, we the representatives, or we the judges, or I the president, it starts "We the people", the people should have the bottom line in what goes on in their country.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I have faith though that the people will vote what the majority of people want.

The constitution does not start, we the representatives, or we the judges, or I the president, it starts "We the people", the people should have the bottom line in what goes on in their country.

I love that idea, but what if the majority of the people are voting for or against something that defies your idea of what rights a citizen should have? Just because more people are voting that way doesn't make it right. (Or not right, depending on the issue.)

 

[Lintu]

I love that idea, but what if the majority of the people are voting for or against something that defies your idea of what rights a citizen should have? Just because more people are voting that way doesn't make it right. (Or not right, depending on the issue.)

Absolutely true. If the majority of the country thought that women should not be allowed to work outside the home, would you say that it was okay, Emu? After all, I don't believe there's anything in the constitution about women and work. What if the people wanted segregation again? You'd rather have the people reinstate that then rely on the law written by a handful of judges?

 

[Lintu]

I have to add that a majority can be only 50.000000001%...and that can leave a LOT of people extremely unhappy and unrepresented.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I don't think you can have a healthy state where 49% of the people feel oppressed.

 

[retrorich]

Voters in 11 states decided that same-sex marriages should be banned. I can only hope that the courts will rule such bans unconstitutional. The voice of the people is not always the voice of justice.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Voters in 11 states decided that same-sex marriages should be banned. I can only hope that the courts will rule such bans unconstitutional. The voice of the people is not always the voice of justice.

Barring a US Supreme Court ruling on the issue (which is unlikely for a while), the courts will only strike these down on procedural problems, such as considering more than one issue in one admendment.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems that all civil rights are ultimately established by popular vote. The constitution was adopted by popular vote, as were the admendments. The courts merely interpret the constitution. I think the Supreme Court will eventually find that homosexuals have a right to marriage. It seems they're headed in that direction.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

In my opinion, Emu, Trance Am, and Sunstone are absolutely correct.

The people already have (and have always had) the right to determine such matters. In America, because of the fact that the Bill of Rights that is encompassed in the Constitution, the people already have the right to make such decisions. At this point, it will take more than a simple majority to achieve such a thing. Before anything like this can happen, the Constitution itself would have to be amended - which requires passage of a bill by 38 states (I may be wrong - Pah will know for certain), to repeal the rights already guaranteed.
This won't happen, because the closer it came to being a reality, the more that the sane people in the US would stand up against it - and the more that the Religious Right would be recognized for what it is.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[retrorich]

It seems that all civil rights are ultimately established by popular vote. The constitution was adopted by popular vote, as were the admendments. The courts merely interpret the constitution. I think the Supreme Court will eventually find that homosexuals have a right to marriage. It seems they're headed in that direction.

True, the Constitution was adopted by popular vote. But I took the topic of the thread to mean popular voting SINCE the adoption of the Constitution, such as the same-sex marriage bans approved by voters in 11 states.

 

[Mister Emu]

I love that idea, but what if the majority of the people are voting for or against something that defies your idea of what rights a citizen should have? Just because more people are voting that way doesn't make it right. (Or not right, depending on the issue.)

True, yet "right" is a subjective thing, and while I dislike the majority of people forcing morals, I dislike the idea of a minority forcing something on the majority even more, this may sound rude but someone is always going to feel wronged, and in America it should never be the majority of people.

Absolutely true. If the majority of the country thought that women should not be allowed to work outside the home, would you say that it was okay, Emu?

I would not agree with the descision, but I should not be able to force my minority ideas on the majority.

After all, I don't believe there's anything in the constitution about women and work. What if the people wanted segregation again? You'd rather have the people reinstate that then rely on the law written by a handful of judges?

Yes, that popular descisions can always change, but if you leave power in the hand of the few you have no recourse but their whims whatever they may be. If extreme power is left with a small group of people things will only get worse.

I have to add that a majority can be only 50.000000001%...and that can leave a LOT of people extremely unhappy and unrepresented.

Yeah, but more people will be unhappy and feel completley useless if they are in the majority and their ideas are not represented

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I don't think you can have a healthy state where 49% of the people feel oppressed.

49% oppressed is more healthy than 51% oppressed.

I can only hope that the courts will rule such bans unconstitutional.

How can they, the constitution makes no mention of marriage, and thus the power is left to the states.

They are either lying now, or then. Either one is bearing false witness.

I pledged alliegance to a nation under God, and I intend to do all in my power to keep it that way

This won't happen, because the closer it came to being a reality, the more that the sane people in the US would stand up against it

I hope so too. I am against many things, rights for people to act the way they want without harming another is not one of them, though I may disagree with them on whether it is right or not, even if I believe it is a sin.

and the more that the Religious Right would be recognized for what it is.

Not all of the religious right are extremist anti-love hate mongers. I hope.

 

[painted wolf]

the problem with majority rule is that the law is also ment to protect the minority from abuse by the majority. That is the essance of freedom, to be able to be in the minority.

wa:do