Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (133491)	3/25/2001 11:17:07 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Clearly, there is a process for funneling 'beliefs' and 'needs of the people (or some subsection)' into 'laws'. Also clearly, the union of these beliefs and 'needs' is not possible; there are too many instances of conflict. So, what do we fall back on? With my most Libertarian-sounding voice, I say "the rights of the people". This should be the backbone of our law-making process. I do not believe, incidentally, that this is purely a Libertarian concept. The quantity of the laws is nothing; the quality is everything. If it takes one or ten thousand laws to protect the rights of the people, then that is the right number. So, I do not believe the 'less is more' when it comes to creation of laws to protect our rights. Rather, the exact 'right number' is the correct number. So, these groups have the right to advocate their viewpoints, whether heavenly or earthly inspired. My point is that the overriding 'judgement' as to the 'correctness' of the law should be the rights of ALL the people, not the beliefs of any individual group of people. On the issue of gay marriage, the issue is clear: either allow it, or don't. If you allow it, then the rights of gay couples are protected. If you don't, what is the 'penalty' to the religious groups? They claim that allowing gay marriage is clearly against God's will. Just as clearly, that shouldn't amount to a hill of beans in the decision making process, as we have a secular government. They claim that it contributes to the moral decay of America; again, that is their religious interpretation. As I've said before, the gay relationships I've seen are paragons of commitment and love. So, do we trample on the rights of gay people to formalized commitment to satisfy the teachings of established churchs? The argument that we should 'because it's always been that way' is bunk. For most of history, there have been laws that strip the basic human rights of many ethnic groups. Those laws, though ancient, have always been wrong. I fear I have rambled on, possibly around the point you were making. My point is that the religious groups can and should be represented, but their mere existence as religious groups give them no special authority to usurp the rights of other, opposing groups.

To: Little Joe who wrote (133491)	3/26/2001 12:50:23 AM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Excellent posts tonight Little Joe. Have a good week. alan w

To: Little Joe who wrote (133491)	3/26/2001 11:49:47 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

As long as these groups do not use violence to advocate their positions, I do not fear them. After all, when you think about it, what you are saying if you fear them is that you fear our government and our democracy. By George, we'll make a liberterian of you yet. :) It's not just violence. One of the salient roles of our government is to protect individual rights in a democracy from the "tyranny of the majority." Electorates with enduring majorities, like Christians, can easily forget that others have rights, too. It's the responsibility of all of us in a democracy to temper the power of majorities to impose themselves on minorities through law. Karen