4 ms·

> democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Pr

> democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8. It was judicially overturned, not democratically so. He actually did limit their rights.

trhway 12y ago
>> democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. >That's not true. that's not true. It is exactly the difference between democracy and ochlocracy - both are the rule by majority - that in democracy some minority rights are protected from even the majority rule, and such a judicial overturn is exactly a part of the democracy that ochlocracy lacks.
- function_seven 12y ago
  There's nothing inherent in the definition of democracy that requires protection of minority rights. It is true that many forms of democratic government include checks on majority power, but democracy per se doesn't automatically incorporate those protections. Thankfully we have constitutions and a judiciary that define and enforce these protections. That being said—even if I'm wrong on this point—it's the third clause that I took exception with, that "nobody was harmed." EDIT: I think maybe I'm being pedantic here. While a democracy doesn't automatically include these protections, you're certainly right that ochlocracy excludes them.
wtbob 12y ago
> That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8. No, they weren't denied their marriage rights: under Prop 8, any unmarried lesbian was free to marry any consenting unmarried man, and any unmarried homosexual was free to marry any consenting unmarried woman. The state did not recognise 'marriages' between men or women, but that's not denying anyone's rights, nor is it harming anyone. Pope Francis is not harmed if the State of California doesn't recognise him as the Vicar of Christ.

trhway 12y ago

>> democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. >That's not true. that's not true. It is exactly the difference between democracy and ochlocracy - both are the rule by majority - that in democracy some minority rights are protected from even the majority rule, and such a judicial overturn is exactly a part of the democracy that ochlocracy lacks.

function_seven 12y ago
There's nothing inherent in the definition of democracy that requires protection of minority rights. It is true that many forms of democratic government include checks on majority power, but democracy per se doesn't automatically incorporate those protections. Thankfully we have constitutions and a judiciary that define and enforce these protections. That being said—even if I'm wrong on this point—it's the third clause that I took exception with, that "nobody was harmed." EDIT: I think maybe I'm being pedantic here. While a democracy doesn't automatically include these protections, you're certainly right that ochlocracy excludes them.

wtbob 12y ago

> That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8. No, they weren't denied their marriage rights: under Prop 8, any unmarried lesbian was free to marry any consenting unmarried man, and any unmarried homosexual was free to marry any consenting unmarried woman. The state did not recognise 'marriages' between men or women, but that's not denying anyone's rights, nor is it harming anyone. Pope Francis is not harmed if the State of California doesn't recognise him as the Vicar of Christ.