Public vote on civil rights (reject, sexuality, faith, legislation)

[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.

[Holly]

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'.

wa:do

[Holly]

Originally Posted by TranceAm

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?

[retrorich]

Originally Posted by Holly

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]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

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]

Originally Posted by FeathersinHair

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.