We will never get our rights if we can't reelect parties who give us them

[dsc]

In Canada the Liberals have gone down. Gay marriage may well soon follow. Even if it doesn't, the extent to which this issue gets blamed for the Liberals loss it will be yet another example of us not being able to protect our protectors from backlash.

[sasha031]

1. it's not that bad, tory is a minority

discussion going here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=190

[dsc]

3. A free vote on this issue sounds like it is a recipe

for disaster. He will have 125 votes and only need 30. Assuming he can get 10 from the Bloc he only needs 20 from the rest.

[Skip Intro]

2. Nobody "gives" rights. Rights are either recognized, or not, but rights

are rights, just the same. They aren't given, and they can't be taken away.

They are either recognized, or they are not.

But rights are rights, reguardless.

[dusmcj]

4. no one gives us our rights, we exercise them, we take them

if we believe that they are inherently ours, then no one has the power to give them to us, only possibly the power to interfere with our ability to exercise them.

In a democracy, the appropriate response to that is for the people, one of the estates of the nation, to make it clear to the other estates of the nation, including government, business and organized social structure (as an expansion of 'church') that they will not accept such curtailment.

As long as those other estates behave according to the guidelines and spirit of a civil democratic society, namely that the state serves the people and dissent will not be met with oppression but instead is welcome, then the appropriate response from the people in such situations is to make their displeasure public, by communicating with those elected to serve them, as their representatives, in government, and by engaging in mass communications such as peaceful demonstrations, strikes, and other collective public activity designed to communicate to their peers serving in the other estates that conditions must change.

Should those other estates suspend the mentioned conditions of civil society and behave undemocratically, they do so at their peril. Ours as well, but there's a lot more of us than there are of them.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. We're talking about minorities here; not something John Locke

.

We're talking about minorities here; not something philosopher John Locke authored about "natural law" derived from biblical sources against the royals of Europe or that Jefferson hypocritically emulated in the Declaration of Independence but failed to apply to minorities until centuries later when some American courts-of-law granted (yes, "granted") such express and implied constitutional rights in the U.S.A., and in courts-of-law in Canada via common law. Although the Canadian parliament has re-affirmed and promulgated same-sex marriage rights for gays, does not then mean that a majority in Canadian parliament cannot attempt to rescind minority same-sex marriage. It is only hoped that Canada's highest court will apply minority rights again to over-ride any future Canadian parliamentary attempt by the majority to rescind minority same-sex marriage in Canadian provinces.

.

[dusmcj]

7. without a change in mentality it won't happen

sorry, I can't say I'm part of this particular struggle, so I don't mean to prescribe to you if you are. Although decoupling the state from personal relationships is a priority regardless of sexual orientation, so I feel clear common cause.

I do point out that the notion of inherent rights _is_ fundamental. If you conclude that it is your right to do what you want, it being consensual with any fellow participants and harming none, and that you will always have this right in the abstract, then instances where others do attempt to deprive you of it become practical questions to be disposed of dispassionately. You may not always succeed in neutralizing them, but you will never need to doubt that you are in the right and those who seek to fuck with you are in the wrong. At that point it becomes mechanics.

This is also empowering, as is Mr. Locke's general approach, because it rights the power relationship between individual citizen and the estates of the nation, in this case government and political parties. Let us recall that while political parties have accumulated power over time, they only have it by virtue of popular support. Without people to vote for them they are meaningless. They need to be reminded of this, that they exist at the pleasure of their public, and had damned well better represent that public. The same courtesy extends to government itself. It is constituted of the people, and exists solely to serve them and their collective and individual interests. Those who populate its offices have chosen to serve their fellow citizens, and should be thanked heartily and then held accountable for doing a good job.

If the failure to respect inherent rights is allowed to continue because those seeking that respect are a minority then maybe the majority represents a defective power stasis which needs to be restructured. Vigorous defense of the status quo is always cause for suspicion of self-interest as prime motivation, so that if corruption is endemic, either destroy it, or leave it to rot and join with those who have common cause with you in new alignments.

Returning to earth, I'm not claiming it's easy or devaluing the seriousness this issue has for you. I do claim that this is as good as it gets, that struggle is the only path in this best of all imperfect worlds, and that you're not alone in pursuing the goals you seek, but rather that your struggle shares a common theme with many others. The personal is as political as it ever was; solidarity.

[xchrom]

9. john locke meets machiavelli meets conservatism in the

present day.

i guess my problem with locke today is that he is largely irrelevant given the number of cynical people who don't really believe the issues they espouse.

they simply seek to manipulate, control the masses via the new media age.

i firmly believe that many if not most conservative leaders don't really believe there is any inherent difference between gay folk and non gay folk.
they simply exploit the emotions of the masses.

at least locke had the benefit of actually believing what he wrote.

[Meldread]

6. It isn't *our* fault.

Why is it automatically our fault that they lost the election? It isn't. I don't know much about Canadian politics or parties, but a gay friend of mine lives in Canada, and he told me he was voting for NDP (New Democratic Party) because the Liberals were corrupt.

I think we have to keep in mind that there are big differences between Canada and the United States. If Canadians are blaming the Liberal loss on gays, well... they can just kiss my white American ass. I am rather tired of LGBT people getting blamed when crappy politicians get their asses handed to them. It was the same way when John Kerry lost. We got blamed, despite the fact that it was his own damn fault for not combating the Swift Boat Ads and generally running a boring and dull campaign. By the time he got done trying to play it "safe" on all the issues, you had no idea where he stood and it made him look untrustworthy and it was obvious pandering to all sides.

Also if I remember correctly the Liberals were doing shitty in the polls even BEFORE the gay marriage thing in Canada. I also remember it being mentioned that the only reason Canadians got gay marriage was because it looked like the Liberals were gonna get creamed in the elections, and it was sort of a "ha, in your face" type move before losing power.

[dsc]

10. I have no idea if we are being blamed

the coverage I saw suggested it was corruption, not same sex marriage. But blame is irrelevant. Either people who cross gays win office or they don't. When they do, it shows us to be weak and ineffectual. We can't continually let this happen.

[Meldread]

11. I still disagree.

Why is it our job to ensure a political party wins or loses? It isn't. It's the job of the political party and the candidate running for office. If what I am hearing is true - and keep in mind I really don't pay attention to Canadian politics - then it is no where near our fault.

If I also understand it correctly, it was highly likely that the Liberal Party would LOSE the election long before the idea of gay marriage began floating around, and the only reason gay marriage passed was because it was a kick in the nuts of the conservatives who were likely going to win, and then be forced to deal with the issue. That is to say, if the Liberal Party wasn't likely to lose the election Canadians would most likely not have gay marriage right now.

[SushiFan]

8. Rights may be denied in various ways.....

But they will never be given to people by those who deny rights.


Rights must be taken. They must be demanded. The black movement of the 60s has shown us this. Gay people will remain in America's closet until the day when they demand the door be opened and they assume their rightful place as full and equal citizens-- no different nor no better than the straight majority.


Pissing and moaning achieve nothing except to make gay people look like fools, 2nd class citizen fools, without respect from straights or their own selves. Self-respect will come to gays as a whole only when they stop crying and start fighting for their own God-given rights as people who require their rights for proper functioning in the larger society. At that point, straights will also start to respect gays rather than continuing to marginalize them.