Why can't the liberals respect the will of the voters concerning gay marriage?

Liberals seem like the most anti democratic bunch out there. Why can't the liberals respect the will of the voters concerning gay marriage?
Mark,


You hit it square on. They preach tolerance but have none but for themselves. They act as if they need the paper from the State to validate their lifestyle. All that the straights want is a little respect for the institution of the family, as defined by the value system that brought this whole country together to start with. People recognize that bending moral values breaks foundations of societies 'progressively'. It starts with the adult 'gay' stuff, moves on to plural marriages, violating children, animals. It's a slippery slope. Some would say 'we would never do that' but enough would shrug and say 'why not?' and the whole mess just erupts . . . This group has no respect at all for the voice of the people and seeks to break the very political system that protects them, ignorant I suppose, of how they have been treated historically under other governments and societies. Why can't the liberals respect the will of the voters concerning gay marriage?
Because what is being proposed goes against the ';pursuit of happiness'; of two people who love one another. Why can't you understand how obnoxious it is to have stuck-up a$$holes telling you you can't marry the person you love because it's not legally recognized?! Why can't republicans respect the individual rights of two people who love one another and would like to formally commit their lives to that love?





Anti-democratic? Sit and spin.
But they say that they respect the will of the voters. They say all the time that people need to respect the will of the voters and support what has been decided. They tell me that I'm not patriotic if I don't support the will of the voters. I've seen them many times on here tell people to leave the country if you don't like the way an election turns out.





Surely, they will follow their own advice.
I thought the conservative mantra was ';no government intrusion into our lives.';





So, why can't the FUNDAMENTALIST RAPTURISTS NEOCONS keep their big noses out of peoples' bedrooms...unless they are 'curious' about what goes on...?





Maybe they should ask ex-Idaho Republican Senator Larry ';Wide Stance'; Craig about how HE feels about laws prejudicial towards same-sex activity. After all, shouldn't a man have a right to privacy when he's on the john in an airport bathroom? Or his bedroom?





And for any religious bigots who might have read this far: aren't we all God's children?





And: who are YOU to judge anyone? Isn't that The Lord's job...in the afterlife?





Finally: isn't protesting a person or a group's Constitutionally-protected RIGHT? So, who are you calling anti-democratic?





In the case of Prop. 8 in California, there were many items on the ballot and the way Prop. 8 was worded, a vote FOR it was a vote AGAINST same-sex marriage. I wonder what Republican functionary got the proposition worded that way? What are they afraid of?





Remember this: every gay person who ever lived was produced via heterosexual sex = a man and a woman. By that logic, heterosexuals are responsible for the existence of gay people. Now THAT is justice!!!
Do some research on the history of democracy. One off the biggest fears that early commentators had about democracy was the tyranny of the majority over the rights of the individual. That's what happened here.





If the majority voted back in slavery, that wouldn't be right. If people opposed the outcome, would you say they were undemocratic.





We are not just a mob rules society. We have a constitution and a court system and many other measures in place to protect the individual rights and freedoms we supposedly love so much.
To all those who say ';get out of my bedrom...blah blah';





That isn't the argument. I could care less what you do in your bedroom. Have sex with a man, woman, or 3 goats..or all at the same time...for all I care. What you do in your bedroom is, has, and always will be, your business.





The problem is that marriage is a legally and publically recognised institution with tax implications associated with it...that means that everyone has a say...not just you...hence, the vote. Why this is a hot button topic is because of that legal and public recognition and the fact that it is also a religious institution as well. It's a point of overlap between the church and state....which mean that you are advocating a ';marriage'; that religious people don't feel that they should be forced by the government to recognise socially, legally, or otherwise.





Personally, I'm for a libertarian approach. Take government out of marriage completely. Thier role should be limited to the legalities of any legal contract between two people who are of legal age and capability to enter into a contract with eachother. Other than that, they should be blind to the people actually signing the contract, whether it is a hetero couple or a homo couple. Signing a contract does not make you married...it just means that you've entered into a legal contract...nothing more...nothing less.





';Marriage'; is strictly a religious institution and should be given back to the church. Who I marry is of no concern to the government and they should neither approve nor disapprove any marriage. It is between me, my spouse, my religious institution, and my god(s). Noone else. If a church or temple down the street chooses to not recognise my marriage as legitimate...then oh well...that is thier right too. Simply put...if a gay couple wants to get married...then find a church (temple, synagogue, mosque, whatever) to do the ceremony. Congrats...y'ur married.
Gay marriage along with other social issues might resurface because the sermons of ministers, the speeches of politicians, and the judgments of courts are not fixed. They change as people change. As for the people, there will be future voices who want to be heard too. Have a good week!
Because they like calling names, and throw tantrums when they don't get their way.





unconstitutional?!


if the constitution said you can marry whoever, then why can't a man marry 5 women, or a little boy ? that makes no sense.





the government has no right to force a straight out heresy of the church on us.
one of the problems with the democratic system is the tyrany of the majority. To put it simply 51% of the people shouldn't be able to overide the constiution which gaurentees equal rights. In fact you need a 2/3 majority to ammend the California constitution.
Civil rights should not be voted on by the general population. That is the reason we have elected representatives, because the population is not qualified to vote on such matters.
You can't have a vote on human rights! Its unconstitutional, and immoral
The vote itself was unconstitutional. There used to be a ban on interracial marriage, we got rid of that and what happened? Barack Obama.
TAXES (marriage tax credit) and an other way for the government to control their right winged moment.


Bet this changes in the next 4 to 8 years
Because its wrong, unfair, bigoted and discriminitory there is NO reason why gays should not be allowed to marry...


I would love to dictate how you live your life and see how you like it.
Same reason abolitionists couldn't respect the will of the voters... the voter's will was misguided and morally wrong.
I have a better question. WHY THE F#$% DO I NEED THE GOVERNMENTS APPROVAL TO GET MARRIED?!?!





Land of the free My A$$





We've all been lied to our whole life. Both sides make it worse by ENFORCING their values on others.
No civil rights decision was ever made by the will of voters.
Most democrats are anti-religious? That's just not true.
Why can't the Conservatives stay out of grown people's bedrooms?
Wait til they take our guns off us and expect us to respect their 'majority'?






Don't confuse Gays with Liberals they are not one in the same. I don't care either way.
Because their feelings got hurt lol
Basically, as soon as Blacks got what they wanted in the presidency, they turned around and voted no on Prop 8.





This has shocked democrats, who thought they were truly ';democrat.'; No, they were just taking a juxtapose to the predominantly White Republican party.





Now, you will see more 180s as far as Black voters are concerned. They are laughing at how many Whites crossed over and voted for Obama. Why, even Ellen DeGeneres had him on her show. As far as social policies go, Blacks are usually fairly conservative, just not to the point of outwardly supporting the rightists.





On the flip side, I'm surprised that blue California voted no on it. That's huge! At least we republicans didn't have to face a double-whammy this month.
Uuuuuuuuuum...


Because THEY are gay too...


So it affects THEM as well.


(duuuuh?!)





P.S.


**And for those who gave me ';thumbs down';,


either u are bigots who HATE gays (and think being gay is wrong)


OR you hate liberals (OR both).


(So y'all can take those thumbs and stick 'em elsewhere, lol)
this is going to be a tough fight to preserve religous values and keep them seperate from bedroom freedoms. most democrats are anti-religous and are thus poorly educated in how to express thier desired effect in communication in this matter.