sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

With the recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages, many conservative politicians, pundits, and even some of the Supreme Court Justices have been heard complaining that "this is not democracy - this should be determined by a v**e of the people". Ted Cruz even wants an amendment to the constitution (apparently not believing that the majority of Americans are not bothered by gay marriage).

What most apparently forget: our system of government is a "Constitutional Republic" and not really a pure democracy.

As one of our founders (I think it was) once put it: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb v****g on what to have for dinner". Our system is designed to prevent "the tyranny of the majority", and the three separate branches of government is a big part of that.

But in regards to the gay marriage issue, I like what Bill Mahar said about gay marriage and the "sky is falling" crowd: "They do realize that it's not mandatory, don't they"?

Stan W. Loc: Tampa, Fl

Great post.

Rnorth Loc: Southlake, Texas

Thanks for posting, agree completely!

ottopj Loc: Annapolis, MD USA

I agree also. It's interesting that the same complainers were not heard from when W. Bush was declared Pesident by SCOTUS.

brow3904 Loc: Upstate South Carolina

I can agree with you "if" each branch sticks to its established role in our republic. Recently the supreme court stepped over the line when it appears they stopped interpreting the law and started making new laws. You are right about the reason for the three branches. Now there are times the other two have to double check the actions of each other.

Not looking for a fight, just suggesting caution on all sides.

Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

Great post! We have so many, more pressing, issues that we must face. The economy, global terrorism, etc. I'm glad for the "sky is falling" crowd that they feel that they can harp on this relatively innocuous aspect of American society.

Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

A democracy is the majority imposing it's will on on the minority, ignoring their rights. The representative republic should protects the rights of all of the citizens in theory
I believe it was Ben Franklin who said when asked about the type of government the founding Fathers gave us said," a representative republic if you can keep it. Our government is still a work in progress if we can keep it that way. Many mistakes have been made and there will be more. I do not have to agree with every thing that our gov. does but I should defend the effort. After all we have the freedom of choice, I would like you to respect my choices and will do the same for you.

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Well put, SB !

dljen Loc: Central PA

Can't believe some of these guys, they think the world's coming to an end. If they aren't gay, chances are the Supreme Court's decision has no effect on their lives. Tell them that though. :roll:

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

Absolutely - and there is a way to do that if enough people/legislators are in agreement that what the other branch did was wrong.

It really is an amazing system, and all of the checks and balances prevent it from getting too lopsided. Even the way the Senate and House of Representatives were established is brilliant - I thought this is how the government of Iraq should have been set up - a "House" where districts are represented based on population, and a "Senate", where the regions would be represented equally - so the Kurds would have ten ( or wh**ever) senators, the Shia would have ten senators, and the Sunni would have ten senators. That sort of balance would have been more inclusive. I was visiting a small town in Borneo one time when they were having e******ns for a new mayor. The community was half Chinese and half Muslim Malaysians. I asked about the e******n and was told that they decided a while back to have TWO mayors - one Malaysian and one Chinese - the two mayors can work out any problems, and no one feels disenfranchised. Not a bad idea...

And even the conservatives have to admire the way the system worked when an elected president is far more progressive than they would like - it doesn't matter a whole lot. Even though the most rabid and crazy of them (like Rush Limbaugh) screamed that "we need to take to the streets and take back our country" (From the elected president???? Sounded like treason to me. ) most have realized that the system has a certain homeostasis - it is as maneuverable as a supertanker full of crude. Many of us on the left have in fact been very disappointed in Obama because he hasn't gone FAR enough with his agenda - he wouldn't even put a national health care program on the table for discussion for example - but that is not really his fault - he is balanced by a large group of legislators that mostly do not see things his way. So it balances out and makes sure no one is a king or a dictator.