Contrary to popular belief, the United States is not a pure democracy. Instead, we are one type of democracy in particular: a republic. The difference may not be huge, but it is an important distinction.
A pure democracy is one ruled by the mob; whatever 50.1% of the population votes is the law. In a republic, the people are governed by the law; the rights of the other 49.9% are protected by the law. In our case, it is the Constitution that protects the other 49.9%.
Perhaps the California Supreme Court should have kept that thought in mind before ruling in Strauss v. Horton last week, when they declared that Proposition 8 was valid. Prop 8 was a ballot proposition which voters in that state that passed last year, making gay marriage illegal.
Under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the Constitution, neither the federal government nor states are allowed to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Does one not have the basic liberty to marry whomever one chooses?
Although California may be lost – for now – there are other states that are currently having active debates on legalizing gay marriage. New Hampshire is virtually assured to pass a law soon allowing same-sex marriage, and New Jersey is also considering doing the same.
New York is likely where the next large battle will be. The New York Assembly recently passed legislation that would recognize gay marriages; however, it is uncertain whether or not the state Senate will pass it. Local senator Thomas Duane, who is the main proponent of the bill, believes he may have the votes of several Republicans, but does not yet plan to call for a vote on the bill until he is sure that the measure would pass.
While all this happens at the state level, there is not much political discussion nationally because it is too politically sensitive. Sadly, President Obama does not support gay marriage, but only civil unions. If he would switch his position, his backing would greatly aid the equality cause.
If he does not, the courts still have the responsibility to legalize same-sex marriage. Just as they were the only ones who could end segregation, they need to protect the Republic from a tyranny of the majority today.
![Seniors Garrett Batt, Tom White, Emmanuel Nzaramba and Jack Calverley work together in preparation for the Spring Fling. “We decided to host this because March is kind of a slow month [in which] there’s not really that much happening, so I just thought it would be fun to put pep back into everyone so people could look forward to something this month,” senior Delcie Peter said.](https://waylandstudentpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Screenshot-2024-03-20-at-10.28.14-PM-1200x832.png)
Anonymous • Jun 15, 2009 at 8:30 PM
I agree with Plugmoi here. It is not our place to question the question of gay rights. After all, what can we do about them? Basil, I’m sure that even if you managed to convince a few people here to support gay rights, or if Anon/gif managed to convince people not to support gay rights, there would be no lasting effect.
plugmoi • Jun 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM
why do you care about gays so much. i know you aren’t one and we shouldn’t care about gay rights too much. they’re a minority and minorities don’t matter too much. Like i said before i dont care about gay rights, (whether they exist or not).
Anon/gif/ • Jun 15, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Basil, don’t be a fool. Do I really need this attention? I gave up a while ago. If you should be pointing fingers, blame it on senor buchanan beccause he is the one who has given up– and now is trying to poke fun of you under a new guise (assuming that senor buchanan is hill billy). I don’t need this much attention. I don’t like IRL/RL, so why would I be complaining (as this hill billy guy, plus hillbilly is a conjoined word).
Basil • Jun 12, 2009 at 5:35 PM
hill billy, I’m pretty sure you’re anon/gif/ in disguise still trying to get attention.
And just because this is WSPN doesn’t mean it’s not a serious issue “in real life”.
And also, this article is not about republics. I used republics to try to help you understand why gay marriage needs to be legalized.
hill billy • Jun 12, 2009 at 12:10 AM
haha basil i think that whethre he is running away or not doesnt matter. neither does this debate. seriously, get outside. this is a wspn article hahahahahahaha wow i cant believe people take this so seriously. senor buchanana your responses are sooo long hahaha but at least youve realized the stupidity. hahaha wow i honestly feel bad for you guys.
and this is not what your article is about basil! it is about republics. this is all different. write an article about this if you want basil
hahahaha wow
Basil • Jun 11, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Anon/gif/, I’m still ignoring you. And if you’re not still trolling, then you’re still a homophobe for the same reasons.
“it is my religious belief that marriage was designed and should be for a man and a woman and only that”
I understand that. And I am saying that you’re religious belief is *wrong*. And I don’t care if you go against the government or not. I am saying you are a bigot because you would not allow one group of people access to an institution.
“Now I have never met Tom and Mary, but they sound like they would make a pretty good couple.”…etc
I don’t understand where you are going with this whole paragraph. I don’t care what you’re religious beliefs are. They are wrong. The government can deny people driver’s licenses to prevent them from injuring others; giving gays marriage licenses does not endanger anybody.
“Am I being discriminated against because I am being denied an A, no matter how hard I try?”
Your metaphor is a straw man. It does not relate. It is not analogous. I’m sorry, but I do not understand what you are trying to say. Grades in school are based on performance; marriage is not based on this.
“You may make some snide comment about me running away from the argument, but lets look at the big picture. You are arguing against an anonymous person on WSPN. Is it really that big of a deal? I think we both spend we too much time here and need to get out more.”
No, you ARE running away from the argument. You are tacitly admitting defeat and admitting you have no idea how to debate. Come back when you learn to defend your position.
If you cannot defend it, do not believe it. It is people like you – people that run away from the debate because they have nothing to defend their position other than pure bigotry – who have prevented equality from reaching America.
Anon/gif/ • Jun 11, 2009 at 7:03 AM
Hey B-Halps:
You might go ahead and call me a homophobe too. I don’t believe that they [gays] should have the ability to marry: it’s just that in my honest opinion, I find it better to have marriage just between a man and a woman. We aren’t discriminating because of their choices (idk for choice what to put in place of it), we’re just saying that we believe marriage is between a man and a woman. A civil union is not that bad, they could have all of the same concepts and benefits of a married couple, but we just don’t think they could be married. Liberals are consistently taking words and then turning it into some other crap. I find that a little too funny, when a simple point to cross. Also, if gays legally had the right to marry, how come the idea didn’t pop up a couple decades ago when the 14th amendment was put into place? Do a little thinking Albert.
señor buchanan • Jun 10, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Basil, sorry I didn’t use Webster. I typed the word “homophobe” into my trusty Google search bar and clicked definition in the top right corner of the page. Apparently that gives me Answers.com’s definition. I am SO sorry, that was probably a really dumb thing to do. But I digress. Let’s move on and talk about what really matters. (Speaking of digressing, isn’t this article about republics? Haha)
I suppose you could argue that people do have the liberty to choose whom they may like to marry. However, as I previously stated, it is my religious belief that marriage was designed and should be for a man and a woman and only that. Yes, I see your point, I just don’t agree that just anyone should be married. You can call me anti-American or anything else for “going against the all powerful and oh so great constitution”, but nobody is required to support everything the government has ever done. You would be hard pressed to find someone who does.
Now I have never met Tom and Mary, but they sound like they would make a pretty good couple. But you may know them better, so I am going to trust you that they do not want this marriage. I do not believe that “the government therefore can deny marriage to whomever it wishes”. I think that marriage should only be provided to those who should have it (yes, based on my religion). (On a side note, I think our society needs to take a long hard look at how anyone is allowed to be married because the divorce rate is WAY too high. We need to do some serious evaluating). Even if they government could deny marriage to anyone, that doesn’t mean they can force it upon someone. The government can deny anyone their driver’s license because they don’t think they’re a good enough driver, but they can’t go around forcing good drivers to have a license.
You believe that anyone should have access to marriage. So then I guess the same thinking applies to everything else. You know, I don’t get perfect grades in school. They’re just not available to everyone. Am I being discriminated against because I am being denied an A, no matter how hard I try?
Wow. I just realized that I truly don’t care what you think. No offense to you, but your beliefs are your beliefs, and mine are mine. I don’t care about persuading you; I know I never will and I really don’t care less. You may make some snide comment about me running away from the argument, but lets look at the big picture. You are arguing against an anonymous person on WSPN. Is it really that big of a deal? I think we both spend we too much time here and need to get out more. Seriously. You and me. We’re going to spend a day away from WSPN at Six Flags together.
Yeah, sorry Mrs. Karman. I realized that was kinda stupid after I submitted it. Sorry I don’t use a real e-mail address. Maybe I will get one so that I can contact you about my concerns about comments being approved.
WELL, I am done with this. And probably WSPN commenting forever. This has made me realize that I have no life…depressing. I think I’ll go ask Vilma what I can do to improve my life. Sorry if you feel like this was left unfinished, it probably is.
P.S. I want to apologize for telling someone they smell like a gorilla. I doubt that you do. I can’t smell anything through my computer.
Basil • Jun 10, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Oh, I have plenty else to say 🙂
Let me start by saying that I did not misconstrue your words in any way. You agree yourself that you believe “they [gays] should have all the rights in the world that a man and women who are married should have.” This is exactly what I said you believed: you believe in civil unions.
As I wrote in the article above, neither the federal government nor states are allowed to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. As I also wrote in the article, don’t we, as free men and women, have the *liberty* to choose whom we wish to marry?
This also follows the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that the government may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. If heterosexuals have the right to marry whomever they wish, then, in accordance with this clause, do homosexuals not have the right to marry whomever they wish?
I suppose you could take an alternate route: you could believe that marrying whomever one wishes is not a liberty of ours, and that the government therefore can deny marriage to whomever it wishes – or force marriage upon others who do not want it. If you believe this, that Congress can order Tom and Mary to be married, we are at an impasse.
This is just why LEGALLY gays should have the right to marry. There is the whole ethical argument behind it as well, that the US should live up to our most fundamental belief that “all men are created equal”. Of course, you don’t seem to believe that all men are created equal, so this argument would be invalid in our argument. That is why I quote Constitutional amendments above.
That is also why I call you homophobe. Try the Webster definition instead of whatever dictionary you used: “discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals”.
You would have gays discriminated against by not allowing them access to the institution of marriage. This makes you a homophobe and discriminatory and just as bad as any racist.
señor buchanan • Jun 10, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Thank you, Anon/gif/. I appreciate it.
“you ACTUALLY believe gays should be prevented from marrying?” – Yes, I do. It is my religious belief that marriage is sacred gift from God designed for a man and woman. You can say whatever you want about me being religious and attack my religion, but that is way I was raised, and that is my belief.
However, I believe that they should have all the rights in the world that a man and women who are married should have.
“Because that follows that whole “separate but equal” thing – you know, that concept supported by white supremacists and ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?” – Oh you know what Basil, you’re probably right. You should characterize me with white supremacists and as anti-American by going against the rulings of the Supreme Court. Thanks, that was really kind-hearted.
You are correct in that the supreme court did rule “separate but equal” unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education. This was then upheld by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, I think you will be hard pressed to find anything about right to be marriage in the Civil Rights Act. But I may be wrong, so I found the full document for you so that you can check for yourself. (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=97&page=transcript)
“My analysis of your opinion is correct. You support separate but equal “marriages”, and are still a homophobe.” – You can call it whatever you want. Separate but equal, whatever, it’s your choice. I don’t believe that a religious marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is what God intended (you can disagree with my religion, that’s your choice), but I fully support the idea that homosexual couples deserve the rights offered by the government to married couples.
And how would that even make me a homophobe? “Homophobe – n. 1. One who has fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.” That is not me. And I am seriously insulted that you would call me that because I am not that cruel.
Next time, please do not misconstrue my words and start calling me names.
If you have anything else to say, please respond.
jdkarman1 • Jun 10, 2009 at 10:32 PM
To Senor Buchanan,
If you gave an accurate e-mail address, the moderators could contact you to discuss your concerns.
Anon/gif/ • Jun 10, 2009 at 6:56 AM
Yo B-Halps, I think that señor buchanan has the right idea. I mean, people don’t have to be homophobic. I can respect gay people, even though I may not respect their choices. Think about it, buchanan’s comment is basically saying that he’s O.K. with gays, but he doesn’t want them violating what he believes to be the sanction of marriage (Man + Woman). He doesn’t have to homophobic to have that opinion. You liberals consistently are taking ideas out of context (or rewording the context) and then BLASTING it to a whole new level where it wasn’t at before: read it for what it says. Also, B-Halps I’m not trolling on this article, I’m telling the truth about my opinion on gay marriage. It should be between a Man and a Woman only, although some of my constitutional ideas may have been trolling.
anonn • Jun 9, 2009 at 4:56 PM
furthermore i think its fair enough to ask to anon and senor buchanan, who made you god?
who gave you the right to dictate whether or not these people get to live their lives?
anonn • Jun 9, 2009 at 6:48 AM
anon this information is not being presented in any way shape or form that isnt proper new reporting.
the only thing that is hurting america is that people with shockingly low morals (no need for me to say any names here) openly criticizing what is considered someone’s Constitutional right
Anon/gif/ • Jun 8, 2009 at 6:19 PM
@anon/gif:
Really? The 14th amendment is only about citizenship, and all it was trying to protect the rights of the blacks’ after the Civil War. On top of that, I’m not an ignorant bigot. Please grab a Bible and read up: God Himself said that in the Bible people that considered themselves to be ‘homosexual’ should be stoned/ignored/annoyed. On top of that, I wasn’t trying to talk about how the government’s choices were correct/incorrect, I was simply saying that it was against my Constitutional rights, and in reality it should be contested. And anyways, this article is mainly focused on government’s, and gay marriage was an example. Republics are amazing.
Basil • Jun 8, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Seriously? Senor Buchanan, I know anon/gif/ and anon are posting comments here intentionally to be annoying (and I know who they are as a matter of fact), but you ACTUALLY believe gays should be prevented from marrying?
You say you have nothing against gays, but believe they should not be able to participate in the institution of marriage, right? Is it fair for me to assume then that you then support some other type of bond between gays so that they have the same full legal rights as heterosexuals?
Because that follows that whole “separate but equal” thing – you know, that concept supported by white supremacists and ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? However, I guess I could be mischaracterizing your argument.
I see two possibilities:
1. I’m mischaracterizing your argument. You’re a liar (“I have nothing against homosexuals”), and you’re a homophobe.
2. My analysis of your opinion is correct. You support separate but equal “marriages”, and are still a homophobe.
Your choice.
señor buchanan • Jun 8, 2009 at 1:13 AM
@ @ anon/gif:
While I do not disagree with you, I find it rude that you would call someone an ignorant bigot. As a matter of fact, I am appalled that the WSPN moderators, whom I have assumed were very strict, allowed that to go up. I think I might just add an insult at the end of every single one of my comments to make my arguments more assertive.
You smell like a gorilla.
But anyways, as far as this article goes, I have nothing against homosexuals. But I do believe marriage was designed by God to be between a man and a woman. I think a homosexual couple should get the rights they deserve, but marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman with God’s blessing.
anon • Jun 6, 2009 at 9:30 PM
i dislike your articles because they are biased in the most communist way ever.
please stop.
you’re hurting america.
plugmoi • Jun 5, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Well republics aren’t all that bad. For example when Rome was a republic, it was beastly. When it turned into an empire it got destroyed. I’m not homophobic or anything, but i don’t care in the least about gay rights: whether they have them or not.
@ anon/gif • Jun 4, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Anon/gif/- you’re twisting the legislation completely. that means that your church can choose not to marry individuals in your church, that is legal. but denying gay citizens marriage certificates issued by the government is completely unconstitutional. read the 14th amendment. don’t twist the facts. if you don’t like gay marriage then don’t get one and don’t spread hate like an ignorant bigot.
Anon/gif/ • Jun 4, 2009 at 7:01 AM
I disagree with this article strongly, as gay marriage violates my 1st constitutional rights. “Congress shall make no law… religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This clearly shows that gay marriage is constitutionally against the majority of the Christians’ (any and all except the Unitarians) rights.
melanie • Jun 3, 2009 at 6:25 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/06/nh_legislature.html
🙂
Basil • Jun 3, 2009 at 4:03 PM
I agree with both anons here.
anon • Jun 3, 2009 at 9:47 AM
I understand that you have to choose your battles wisely, but this is a basic issue of human rights. I understand he has to play politics, but I personally think our president shouldn’t be an ignorant coward.
It’s always the right time to do the right thing.
Anon. • Jun 3, 2009 at 7:01 AM
The reason for Obama’s stance against gays is due to many American’s opposition to it. He is just playing politics in that regard.