North Carolina did nothing that was
discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action
against a
religious group, or a class of people such as blacks.
---
homosexuals are guaranteed the same protection as the religious and
the blacks
This was a
referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
---
their beliefs, reliious or not, have no effects on the courts
decisions
On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well said Mark.
>
> We've beat this issue to death, but one thing that I think writers such as
> Chris Bassil are missing, is that North Carolina did nothing that was
> discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action against a
> religious group, or a class of people such as blacks. This was a
> referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
> Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
>
> At one time I was opposed to amending the Constitution to define marriage.
> I see no other alternative. The militant Gays and those that have been
> brain washed into believing that this is some type of "right" need to be
> quashed and shut down on this issue.
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:59 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is EXACTLY the reason the founders put in the 10th Amendment...
> > They were aware that each and every State had its' own moral compass
> > and would/should be able to to express that moral compass as the
> > majority sees fit. New York can have the gays (etc) and give them
> > whatever rights the State may offer while North Carolina is well
> > within their right to deny them... the same is true of any basic
> > issue.
>
> > On Jun 18, 9:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > The Secession SolutionMonday, June 18, 2012
> > > byChris Bassil
> > > Earlier this month,Amendment 1-- an amendment to the North Carolina
> > state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay marriage,
> > among various other kinds of domestic partnership -- was passed by voters.
> > Much has already been made of the bill's discriminatory content, the former
> > need to "vote against," and the current need for repeal, but much of this
> > looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything else.
> > > In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that this
> > election was decided in one direction and not the other, but rather that we
> > live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a means of
> > collective decision making in the first place.
> > > One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue of gay
> > marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly assumes that the
> > state -- as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place of business,
> > or any other pool of people -- is the appropriate unit for collective
> > decision making. It suggests that state residency is a common denominator
> > fundamental enough to bind 9.7 million people to one another's opinions,
> > interests, and backgrounds -- complex, diverse, and contradictory though
> > they may be. It contends that it is morally acceptable for 93 counties to
> > decide an issue not only for themselves but for the remaining seven as
> > well. And it denies a man -- or two, or several -- the opportunity to lead
> > his life as he, and not as his distant neighbors, sees fit.
> > > In fact, this is true of any state election -- from the local to the
> > federal -- regardless of the issue or its outcome. To be sure, the
> > Amendment 1 decision results in a greater and more visible loss of freedom
> > than many others, but each and every vote that has ever been cast has been
> > predicated on establishing a uniform set of rules for a heterogeneous group
> > of people. A simple examination of the purpose behind voting shows this to
> > be true a priori. If, on the one hand, the population were entirely
> > homogeneous, there would be no need to vote, because our identical beliefs,
> > incentives, and experiences would compel us all toward the exact same
> > actions and conclusions. The vote, by virtue of its own existence,
> > therefore implies our heterogeneity. On the other hand, it also implies our
> > search for -- or perhaps toleration of -- one-size-fits-all solutions to
> > our varied and diverse problems. (If we were content with different
> > solutions for different people, again, there would not be a need for the
> > vote.)
> > > As local backlash to the Amendment 1 decision has shown, however,
> > one-size-fits-all solutions tend to fit the mobs that instate them better
> > than the minorities that reject them. Put otherwise, the outcome of the
> > recent vote is not actually a uniform solution for the heterogeneous
> > population of North Carolina. It is a uniform solution for the largest
> > homogeneous community within that population, by which all of the smaller,
> > subordinate populations will henceforth be made to abide.
> > > The tension arising from this arrangement, as Friedrich Hayek noted
> > inThe Constitution of Liberty, is fundamental to the democratic process.
> > "The current theory of democracy," Hayek wrote, "suffers from the fact that
> > it is usually developed with some ideal homogeneous community in view and
> > then applied to the very imperfect and often arbitrary units which the
> > existing states constitute."
> > > Both the imperfection and arbitrariness of state-level decision making
> > have revealed themselves to progressive voters here, many of whom now seem
> > to be eager to distance themselves as much as possible from the state and
> > their fellow citizens.
> > > Take, for example, their observation that support for Amendment 1 is
> > inversely related to level of education, and that those counties that voted
> > against the amendment are all home to major universities:
> > > It is, of course, difficult to say exactly why it is that voters have
> > taken to invoking these relationships and sharing these images, but at
> > least some of them have done so as an assertion of the validity of their
> > position. In theirappeal to authorityrepresented, in this case, by the
> > ivory tower -- those who promote this intellectually elitist interpretation
> > of the outcome concern themselves too much with their own moral
> > superiority. In so doing, they overlook the true stories that the graphics
> > shown above tell, and the ways in which the depicted voting patterns -- and
> > their reality of an electorate fractured along religious, educational, and
> > socioeconomic lines -- crystallize the aforementioned ideas of Hayek, as
> > well as those of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, on the shortcomings of democracy as a
> > process of collective decision making.
> > > In other words, the above graphics are valuable, not because they
> > provide insight into the progressive voting tendencies of college-going
> > young people, but rather because they serve as a strong, visual testament
> > to the heterogeneity of North Carolina's (voting) population, and to the
> > ways in which a spectrum of varying backgrounds, upbringings, and belief
> > systems influence individuals toward differing -- and, in this case,
> > opposing -- conclusions. Although this point is easy to lose sight of, it
> > should have been obvious even without the graphic: after all, it is clearly
> > likely that, in many cases, those who live in close proximity to a
> > university may make decisionsdifferently-- not necessarily better and not
> > necessarily worse, both being subjective moral valuations -- than those who
> > live in more rural areas.
> > > For one thing, the presence of a universityattractsa crowd different
> > from the one drawn to the rural areas; this fact alone should be enough to
> > tell us that these two populations may not see eye to eye. Furthermore,
> > those living in city or college-town settings will be drawn toward
> > different programs than those who are not, and will often be incentivized
> > toward different behaviors and solutions. To lump these varying locales
> > together and put matters to a statewide vote, then -- in which every
> > personal preference, history, character trait, and bias becomes a variable
> > -- is something of an absurd version of "apples to oranges." Each city
> > voter attempts to impose his personal standards, goals, and solutions on
> > each voter from the outskirts, and vice versa. Each voter holds the entire
> > population of North Carolina to his own subjective, personal values scale,
> > with the result that 9.7 million of them end up unable to fulfill each
> > other's aims.
> > > This is one of the fundamental problems that Hoppe addresses
> > inDemocracy: The God That Failed. In relation to the question of
> > immigration, Hoppe makes a point that is well-taken here as well:Secession
> > solves this problem, by letting smaller territories each have their own
> > admission standards and determine independently with whom they will
> > associate on their own territory and with whom they prefer to cooperate
> > from a distance.Hoppe's assumption is, of course, that large states bound
> > by democratic processes are unable, by virtue of the heterogeneity of their
> > populations, to reach uniform conclusions that please everyone. The
> > populations, then, would actually be better served by splitting themselves
> > into a series of smaller populations, in order that any methodology of
> > collective decision making might better approach the true will of the
> > citizens.
> > > As units of decision making get smaller and smaller, the variability
> > between these increasingly small states is likely to rise, and the varied
> > interests of a collection of diverse populations are increasingly better
> > served. "Secession," Hoppe elaborates, "increases ethnic, linguistic,
> > religious, and cultural diversity, while centuries of centralization have
> > stamped out hundreds of distinct cultures." And, so long as citizens are
> > able to "vote with their feet," these increases in diversity actually put
> > pressure on communities to fashion themselves (and their policies, marriage
> > related or otherwise) in as appealing a manner as possible.
> > > There is a caveat that must be recognized here, and that is that, under
> > such systems of decentralized decision making, policies such as Amendment 1
> > would undoubtedly come to pass in many communities. It is true that,
> > without the constant threat of forceful intervention by state and federal
> > governments, certain communities might choose not to
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment