1. #4321
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    They called it already. Not even close. The urban voters totally dominated the rural voters.

    https://www.kansascity.com/news/poli...263823143.html

    Kentucky next in Nov.

    - - - Updated - - -



    They have no choice. Without the state constitutional amendment, Kentucky GOP legislators can't pass laws banning abortion.
    Eh, much like other places, it won't stop them regardless if it is in their or the US constitution. The GQP has shown quite often they will go against the will of the people if they feel like it.

  2. #4322
    The Lightbringer Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    3,259
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    As much as I’m against Roe v Wade being abolished, I respect that Kansas, a red state, still left the decision up to its people.
    i don't think that basic human rights (like the right to get a medical procedure for my health) should be subject to popular votes, but you do you...

    I mean that's basically the talking point of the GOP: This shouldn't be decided federally but each state on their own.

    P.S.: They don't leave the decision to the people. Legislators want to get rid of it, but they HAVE to ask first. Do you really think there would have been a vote if it wasn't required?
    Last edited by Pannonian; 2022-08-03 at 07:04 AM.

  3. #4323
    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    i don't think that basic human rights (like the right to get a medical procedure for my health) should be subject to popular votes, but you do you...
    Unfortunately, the alternative in this case seems to be to let old white theocrats make the decision unilaterally. So given that the majority of the population disagrees with their dogshit ideas, leaving it up to a vote is preferable.

  4. #4324
    The Lightbringer Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    3,259
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    Unfortunately, the alternative in this case seems to be to let old white theocrats make the decision unilaterally. So given that the majority of the population disagrees with their dogshit ideas, leaving it up to a vote is preferable.
    As i edited - do you really think there would have been a vote if they weren't required to?

  5. #4325
    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    As i edited - do you really think there would have been a vote if they weren't required to?
    No. Of course not.

  6. #4326
    The Lightbringer Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    3,259
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    No. Of course not.
    So, what is there to celebrate? I mean i know there is some illogical quasi-religious sentiment in the US regarding states votes, but "i'm glad they let the people in the state vote" is 1:1 the talking point of the GQP. Sure the RESULT of the vote is great, but that the vote happened in the first place is not something to celebrate imho.

    I mean lets say interracial marriage protection is abolished to (taking you bets now!), do you think it is a good idea to let the people decide "Should interracial marriages be illegal again"?

    Or, because we're at the topic of amendments

    "Should we abolish the amendment against enslaving people?" - women voting? Hey as long as states can decide everything is fine.

    I just think its a particular undemocratic sentiment showing a very childish understanding of politics/democracy.
    Last edited by Pannonian; 2022-08-03 at 07:22 AM.

  7. #4327
    The Lightbringer Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    Religion.

    I would be incredibly surprised if there was any other justification.
    Always thought that all the legal rights that have to do with a partnership between two (or more) people should be moved to civil partnerships and marriage should be left as a strictly religious concept.

  8. #4328
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    Always thought that all the legal rights that have to do with a partnership between two (or more) people should be moved to civil partnerships and marriage should be left as a strictly religious concept.
    That would be a massive seizure of power by religious groups. Marriage has always been primarily a legal structure, first and foremost, not a religious one. Where religions have had strong influence and control over it have been in times and regions where the local religious power had strong control over legal systems, like the ecclesiastical law codes of medieval Europe that existed alongside secular laws, or in Sharia law systems. It's still, always, a legal structure first and foremost, the question is if your laws are based on religion. If they aren't, religion has no business being involved in marriage whatsoever.

    Which is the status quo in the Western world. If your faith group holds a marriage ceremony, it doesn't mean dick unless you fill out the appropriate legal document and file it with the government with the appropriate signatures. You can get married with that document alone. None of the religious trappings matter. They might have personal meaning, but they're like a birthday party; you might enjoy that celebration, but it isn't a requirement of your age advancing another year legally speaking. Which is all that matters.

    Not to mention, trying to make marriage religious means you're going to run into chaos when people who were married in other societies want their marriages recognized, legally speaking. Because without that legal recognition, marriages matter about as much as communion does. In other words, not at all. You could marry a child, you could divorce anyone just by saying so and without any penalty unless your faith enforces such, and even then, only by the loose enforcement methods of your faith group. You know those scenes where someone "marries" a tree or something? That's what you're turning all marriage into.

    Thanks, but the rest of us are fine with marriage being a foundational and internationally-recognized legal arrangement.


  9. #4329
    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    I mean lets say interracial marriage protection is abolished to (taking you bets now!), do you think it is a good idea to let the people decide "Should interracial marriages be illegal again"?
    To some extent, yes.

    I like to believe that MOST people in the US actually think along fairly reasonable lines. The majority of them - by a wide margin - are fine with abortion, interracial marriage, LGBTQ rights and so on.

    The only real issue is the silly tribal nonsense between parties. Take that away and we'd find that we actually aren't all that "fractured" and "divided" as people would like us to think.

    So in some way, letting the people show that through a vote like this wasn't such a terrible thing. Not that I really want big issues all up to a majority vote all the time, but I'm really glad this happened to show the nation what people really think on this issue.

  10. #4330
    The Lightbringer Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    3,259
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost of Cow View Post
    To some extent, yes.

    I like to believe that MOST people in the US actually think along fairly reasonable lines. The majority of them - by a wide margin - are fine with abortion, interracial marriage, LGBTQ rights and so on.

    The only real issue is the silly tribal nonsense between parties. Take that away and we'd find that we actually aren't all that "fractured" and "divided" as people would like us to think.

    So in some way, letting the people show that through a vote like this wasn't such a terrible thing. Not that I really want big issues all up to a majority vote all the time, but I'm really glad this happened to show the nation what people really think on this issue.
    Minority rights should never be subject to popular votes. This is a principle of (modern) democracy, but i get that for some people democracy is waving and saluting a flag, and to beat up/imprison everyone not showing devotion to aforementioned flag. So my expectations aren't that high to begin with...

  11. #4331
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost of Cow View Post
    To some extent, yes.

    I like to believe that MOST people in the US actually think along fairly reasonable lines. The majority of them - by a wide margin - are fine with abortion, interracial marriage, LGBTQ rights and so on.

    The only real issue is the silly tribal nonsense between parties. Take that away and we'd find that we actually aren't all that "fractured" and "divided" as people would like us to think.

    So in some way, letting the people show that through a vote like this wasn't such a terrible thing. Not that I really want big issues all up to a majority vote all the time, but I'm really glad this happened to show the nation what people really think on this issue.
    A few problems we aren't really a democracy so our votes don't all count the same, that's how the GOP is able to wield power even though they haven't won an election by popular vote in decades. We have a system that enables powerful minorities like the religious right and GOP to dictate policy. I am not even going into the whole minority rights shouldn't be up for a vote from the majority. We just aren't in a system where your reasoning makes any sense or would play out as you think.

  12. #4332
    Over 9000! Spirit Halloween Voter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Javelin of Shitposts, Post-and-Forget
    Posts
    9,087
    The silver lining of the Kansas vote.
    Watching the copium from pro-lifers and anti-feminists...

    Welcome to MMO-C. One you realize that the median poster is a Johnny Depp fanboi that consume 8 hours of youtube a day. You realize it's hopeless.

  13. #4333
    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Minority rights should never be subject to popular votes. This is a principle of (modern) democracy, but i get that for some people democracy is waving and saluting a flag, and to beat up/imprison everyone not showing devotion to aforementioned flag. So my expectations aren't that high to begin with...
    No, I agree. I see what you're saying.

    I'm just happy this particular vote happened, but that doesn't mean I actually WANT all big issues to be up for direct vote.

  14. #4334
    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    i don't think that basic human rights (like the right to get a medical procedure for my health) should be subject to popular votes, but you do you...
    I don't either...
    Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten. -G. K. Chesterton & Neil Gaiman

  15. #4335
    The Lightbringer Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    3,259
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost of Cow View Post
    No, I agree. I see what you're saying.

    I'm just happy this particular vote happened, but that doesn't mean I actually WANT all big issues to be up for direct vote.
    That's more or less my point - the vote wasn't to enshrine a protection, it was to remove it. And i'm glad it turned out the way it did, but the fact the vote was happening in the first place isn't something that should be lauded.

    Especially not with this braindead "leave it to states" bullshit.

    I'm just sick of people regurgitating some quasi-religious wisdom about democracy without ever thinking about what it actually means. Why is it bad if the federal government is restricting something, but if states do it it is a-ok. This doesn't make sense, and it speaks to a very childlike view of politics in general, where it is more important to say the right things "States rights" "honor the flag" and similar bullshit, instead of actually thinking what it means.

    And just to clarify something: This is not so much against people in this thread, you're all (well, at least the people i responded to) not the ones i'm ranting about, but this sentiment has always baffled me. Especially if you get some people that sprout drivel how the US is the pinnacle of democracy, and then you contrast it with sentiments like these.
    Last edited by Pannonian; 2022-08-03 at 04:25 PM.

  16. #4336
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    A few problems we aren't really a democracy so our votes don't all count the same, that's how the GOP is able to wield power even though they haven't won an election by popular vote in decades.
    Stop buying into their whole "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" nonsense. We're a democracy. We're a real democracy. We're a representative democracy, but we're still a democracy nonetheless. Full stop. The particulars of our voting systems do not change that.

  17. #4337
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Stop buying into their whole "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" nonsense. We're a democracy. We're a real democracy. We're a representative democracy, but we're still a democracy nonetheless. Full stop. The particulars of our voting systems do not change that.
    Barely anymore..

  18. #4338
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,182
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Stop buying into their whole "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" nonsense. We're a democracy. We're a real democracy. We're a representative democracy, but we're still a democracy nonetheless. Full stop. The particulars of our voting systems do not change that.
    Specifically, nowhere in "democracy" is it mandated that votes be exactly evenly distributed. That's just flatly not a thing. Ancient Athens was a democracy, the classical democracy, and the franchise wasn't even universal then.

    Republics are often democratic. The distinction isn't one. The two terms refer to different aspects of government's structure; it makes as much sense to say "we're a republic, not a democracy" as it is to describe your car as an "automatic, not a sedan".


  19. #4339
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Stop buying into their whole "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" nonsense. We're a democracy. We're a real democracy. We're a representative democracy, but we're still a democracy nonetheless. Full stop. The particulars of our voting systems do not change that.
    Joe Biden defeated Trump by 80 million votes but in reality he won by 75-100k ish vote (going by memory) similar thing happened with Hillary. Also be self aware here we are in a thread discussing how 6 religious extremists just removed rights from millions of Americans and they had no say in it. The "representative" part is a joke and no one with an ounce of logic should believe in it anymore.

  20. #4340
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That would be a massive seizure of power by religious groups. Marriage has always been primarily a legal structure, first and foremost, not a religious one. Where religions have had strong influence and control over it have been in times and regions where the local religious power had strong control over legal systems, like the ecclesiastical law codes of medieval Europe that existed alongside secular laws, or in Sharia law systems. It's still, always, a legal structure first and foremost, the question is if your laws are based on religion. If they aren't, religion has no business being involved in marriage whatsoever.

    Which is the status quo in the Western world. If your faith group holds a marriage ceremony, it doesn't mean dick unless you fill out the appropriate legal document and file it with the government with the appropriate signatures. You can get married with that document alone. None of the religious trappings matter. They might have personal meaning, but they're like a birthday party; you might enjoy that celebration, but it isn't a requirement of your age advancing another year legally speaking. Which is all that matters.

    Not to mention, trying to make marriage religious means you're going to run into chaos when people who were married in other societies want their marriages recognized, legally speaking. Because without that legal recognition, marriages matter about as much as communion does. In other words, not at all. You could marry a child, you could divorce anyone just by saying so and without any penalty unless your faith enforces such, and even then, only by the loose enforcement methods of your faith group. You know those scenes where someone "marries" a tree or something? That's what you're turning all marriage into.

    Thanks, but the rest of us are fine with marriage being a foundational and internationally-recognized legal arrangement.
    Didn't that mostly just have to do with literacy and record keeping anyway?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •