02-27-2004, 07:14 PM
Hi,
BTW, glad to see your hand is better. :)
First, a brief reply to your (brief :) ) on topic statement:
I am going to be a grammarian here, and ask the whatever the outcome, don't call it "Marriage," because it isn't
I've addressed that already. To recapitulate: if the government is going to use "marriage" and "spouse" in their legislation to define rights and privileges, then they have become legal terms. Bone demonstrates quite clearly that this is the case. The choices are then to either accept the new de facto definition of "marriage" (and "spouse") or to redraft *all* laws in terms of "unions" and "partners". While I would prefer the second, I expect that it will never happen. Failing that, all I can say is language evolves, deal with it. The time to rant is not now, that a group is asking that "marriage" laws be applied uniformly to all, but back when the term "marriage" was used to imply the only possible civil union. Basically, back when yet another religious concept was codified into law.
But, let us put aside the election year induced tempest in a teapot and consider the more important underlying issue: :)
In theory, the government in a republican or democratic society expresses the will of the people, and if the people have a semi-cohesive set of common cultural assumptions, it is more likely to do so than if they do not. Our government is built on that theory as an underlying assumption.
There are so many built in assumptions, so many fallacies, and so many half truths and untruths in that statement that I am almost at a loss to find a place to start. Perhaps we should examine some terms first.
Democracy has been called "the ultimate tyranny". In many ways that is true. A true democracy with no rule but majority rule is indeed "the tyranny of the mob". Unlike a government where an individual wields total power, there is no hope of replacing the leader through death, through revolution, through any means. Unpopular opinions become illegal actions. In a complete democracy, there is little room for any but the sheep. While there never has been a complete democracy, that of some of the city states of ancient Greece comes closest, with Athens probably leading the way. And even in that state, one could be executed for being unpopular -- just ask Socrates.
A republic is somewhat better. The decisions are made not by the people but by the representatives the people have chosen. Since people typically will choose leaders that they perceive as being better than the norm, those leaders *might* be more likely to be concerned for the good of all the people rather than just the majority. But, again, a lot is left to the chance of getting good leaders. All too often, rather than "good" we get "charismatic". And "charismatic evil" is just as likely as "charismatic good" (I hesitate to name names since at least one brainless fart will answer this post with "You said '****'. You lose.")
As the founding fathers of the USA learned, one way to avoid those pitfalls is to establish the government on a constitution. In many ways, the concept of a constitution and what it says is more important than that of democracy per se. While the parts of the constitution that define the structure of the government is important, more important than that are the limitations on what government can do. In many constitutions (both of the states in the USA and of other countries) the limitations of the government, the rights of the individuals, is contained in a bill of rights. In the case of the US Constitution, it required a separate Bill of Rights.
So, the underlying assumption in the formation of our government, I would claim, is not that we have the right to vote (that right was rather limited under the original Constitution, being only for the House of Representatives (the *lower* house)). The underlying, important assumption is that the we have the freedom of individual choice in matters that do not impinge on the security of the nation. Unfortunately, the founding fathers considered the right not to be forced to shelter soldiers in our homes (except to in times of war) worthy of specific mention (while religion, assembly, the press, speech, and petition are all crammed into one Amendment, indeed, in one sentence) more important than the right to freedom for anyone other than white Anglo-Saxon non-Catholic (except in Maryland) christian land owning heterosexual males. Anything else was either directly discriminated against or ignored as being too insignificant (e.g, women) to mention.
The greatness of our nation is not based on having the most powerful army, not on using the largest percentage of the resources, not in having the richest "poor" in the world. The greatness of our nation is based on the ability we have shown over the generation to extend the freedoms to those who were overlooked or intentionally denied by the founding fathers. The ability to go beyond their limitations, their biases and prejudices so fundamental that they didn't even recognize them. The ability to find a place of legal equality (and, sometimes even actual equality) for many. Hopefully, eventually for all. And each time someone said, "I'm human, too" there were those who replied "Not in my eyes". Fortunately, those with the greater vision prevailed till now.
And that takes us full circle back on topic.
--Pete
BTW, glad to see your hand is better. :)
First, a brief reply to your (brief :) ) on topic statement:
I am going to be a grammarian here, and ask the whatever the outcome, don't call it "Marriage," because it isn't
I've addressed that already. To recapitulate: if the government is going to use "marriage" and "spouse" in their legislation to define rights and privileges, then they have become legal terms. Bone demonstrates quite clearly that this is the case. The choices are then to either accept the new de facto definition of "marriage" (and "spouse") or to redraft *all* laws in terms of "unions" and "partners". While I would prefer the second, I expect that it will never happen. Failing that, all I can say is language evolves, deal with it. The time to rant is not now, that a group is asking that "marriage" laws be applied uniformly to all, but back when the term "marriage" was used to imply the only possible civil union. Basically, back when yet another religious concept was codified into law.
But, let us put aside the election year induced tempest in a teapot and consider the more important underlying issue: :)
In theory, the government in a republican or democratic society expresses the will of the people, and if the people have a semi-cohesive set of common cultural assumptions, it is more likely to do so than if they do not. Our government is built on that theory as an underlying assumption.
There are so many built in assumptions, so many fallacies, and so many half truths and untruths in that statement that I am almost at a loss to find a place to start. Perhaps we should examine some terms first.
Democracy has been called "the ultimate tyranny". In many ways that is true. A true democracy with no rule but majority rule is indeed "the tyranny of the mob". Unlike a government where an individual wields total power, there is no hope of replacing the leader through death, through revolution, through any means. Unpopular opinions become illegal actions. In a complete democracy, there is little room for any but the sheep. While there never has been a complete democracy, that of some of the city states of ancient Greece comes closest, with Athens probably leading the way. And even in that state, one could be executed for being unpopular -- just ask Socrates.
A republic is somewhat better. The decisions are made not by the people but by the representatives the people have chosen. Since people typically will choose leaders that they perceive as being better than the norm, those leaders *might* be more likely to be concerned for the good of all the people rather than just the majority. But, again, a lot is left to the chance of getting good leaders. All too often, rather than "good" we get "charismatic". And "charismatic evil" is just as likely as "charismatic good" (I hesitate to name names since at least one brainless fart will answer this post with "You said '****'. You lose.")
As the founding fathers of the USA learned, one way to avoid those pitfalls is to establish the government on a constitution. In many ways, the concept of a constitution and what it says is more important than that of democracy per se. While the parts of the constitution that define the structure of the government is important, more important than that are the limitations on what government can do. In many constitutions (both of the states in the USA and of other countries) the limitations of the government, the rights of the individuals, is contained in a bill of rights. In the case of the US Constitution, it required a separate Bill of Rights.
So, the underlying assumption in the formation of our government, I would claim, is not that we have the right to vote (that right was rather limited under the original Constitution, being only for the House of Representatives (the *lower* house)). The underlying, important assumption is that the we have the freedom of individual choice in matters that do not impinge on the security of the nation. Unfortunately, the founding fathers considered the right not to be forced to shelter soldiers in our homes (except to in times of war) worthy of specific mention (while religion, assembly, the press, speech, and petition are all crammed into one Amendment, indeed, in one sentence) more important than the right to freedom for anyone other than white Anglo-Saxon non-Catholic (except in Maryland) christian land owning heterosexual males. Anything else was either directly discriminated against or ignored as being too insignificant (e.g, women) to mention.
The greatness of our nation is not based on having the most powerful army, not on using the largest percentage of the resources, not in having the richest "poor" in the world. The greatness of our nation is based on the ability we have shown over the generation to extend the freedoms to those who were overlooked or intentionally denied by the founding fathers. The ability to go beyond their limitations, their biases and prejudices so fundamental that they didn't even recognize them. The ability to find a place of legal equality (and, sometimes even actual equality) for many. Hopefully, eventually for all. And each time someone said, "I'm human, too" there were those who replied "Not in my eyes". Fortunately, those with the greater vision prevailed till now.
And that takes us full circle back on topic.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?