Poll: Should We Have A Referendum On Same-Sex Marriage?

[guyser]

Why, Dancer: you make it sound as though many of the arguments against SSM are illogical, inconsistent or incoherent!

I'm still at a loss as to why, of all issues out there, same sex marriage is the most deserving of a national referendum. Someone? Anyone?

Because some people have sand in their mangina's and cannot get the old head around the fact that SSM is about rights, not morals.

Add in the fact that some , particularly those of a religious bent , want to dictate to the rest of Canada just what those morals are.

[mikedavid00]

The government's decsion to exercise its perogative to revisist existing legislation and the resulting changes to said legislation has no bearing on individual beliefs whatsoever.

That's your opinion though. Don't you get it? You don't have the right to dictate this onto the people.

Why that basic perogative of representative democracy should be overturned in favour of mob rule on this particular issue is beyond me.

Because the word belongs to, and is interperated by, the people of Canada. The laws belong to us and the definition ultimatlely belongs to us the people. Gays have equality. The fight is over a word.

Where are the cries for a referendum on Afghanistan? On the GST?

There was cries for a referendum on the GST before it was passed through.

Also can you please tell me what a 'volunteer army' is? We have a deal and obligation to be in Afgahnistan.

The fact that the people who support direct democracy in the case of the same-sex marriage issue are silent in their advocacy of direct democracy on other issues of far greater significance is bound to cause some to question their motives.

Not true.

The gov't is not supposed to govern in accordance to their own agenda, they are elected to represent us the people. You have been brainwashed over the years to realize this. The gov't does not have the right to govern to their own agenda.

You feel that you are intellectual, and thus, you have the right to dictate your idealisms to the citizens of Canada with them having no say. This is not the purpose of our government. This is why in the US you can vote on proposition.

Proposition 85 in California would allow the parent to be notified if their daughter was to get an abortion due to an accidental pregnancy. As it stands, kids as young as 12 years old can get an obortion for free with out their parents knowing.

Now, there are two sides to the issue. One is moral, one is intellectual.

Instead of the gov't or judge dictating the fate of how the state will handle child abortions, it is voted on a propsostion and the PEOPLE shall decide. Citizens can get educated on the pro's and cons and vote. And this includes people who do NOT have kids.

You just don't get the bigger picture of democracy do you?

We should be voting on propositions in order to bring back democrocy to our parliment.

[mikedavid00]

Meh, values change, and usher in new social norms.

Of course a few people cry foul, but it's a fact of life.

So it's up to a judge or partisan politics to determin the social norms of our society?

That's what I call a non democratic

dictatoriship.

You find me some non-partisan politics anywhere, and I'll gladly eat this cookie.

Poposition 85 in California. This is not partisan and belongs to the people of California. It's not right nor left.

Intellectual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grr6Dd8Ew7E

Moral:

In the end, the people shall decide.

Actually, I wonder if this bill got passed..

46.0% Yes votes ...... 54.0% No votes

Basically, People voted to ALLOW children to get aboritions without their parents knowing.

So don't think that people can't think for themselves.

[Black Dog]

That's your opinion though. Don't you get it? You don't have the right to dictate this onto the people.

Actually, no, it's not my opinion. It's how government works.

Governments are elected by he people. Government's make laws and set policy, obsetnably for the benefit of the people and the betterment of society. Sometimes, the betterment of society neccesitates old laws be changed, upgraded, or eliminated. In this case, the government was confronted with a situation where it seemed that it would have to take the inevitable step to upgrade the existing legal definition of marriage so as to include couple of the same sex. And it did so. It has absolutley sweet f.a. to do with religious marriage, morals, or values. It is not an affront to democracy, but rather an example of how our system works.

Because the word belongs to, and is interperated by, the people of Canada. The laws belong to us and the definition ultimatlely belongs to us the people. Gays have equality. The fight is over a word.

Yeah: you're right, the fight is over a "word". It just so happens that the word under discussion refers specifically to the state-sponsored civil unions the law refers to as marriage. So why try to make it about other things, such as the word marriage as it is defined by various individuals or religious groups?

There was cries for a referendum on the GST before it was passed through.

What about a referendum on Harper's propsed GST reductions. or how about a referendum on Kyoto? On the gun registry? On what colour ink we should use on the $5 bill?

Also can you please tell me what a 'volunteer army' is? We have a deal and obligation to be in Afgahnistan.

Who sez? We never voted on it. It's the people's army, we should have a say!!!

See? Any decuison the goverment makes can be subjected to the same "the people should have a say!!!" rhetoric, yet only SSM seems to bring that particular course of action to the forefront. Why is that?

Not true.

The gov't is not supposed to govern in accordance to their own agenda, they are elected to represent us the people. You have been brainwashed over the years to realize this. The gov't does not have the right to govern to their own agenda.

You feel that you are intellectual, and thus, you have the right to dictate your idealisms to the citizens of Canada with them having no say. This is not the purpose of our government. This is why in the US you can vote on proposition.

Proposition 85 in California would allow the parent to be notified if their daughter was to get an abortion due to an accidental pregnancy. As it stands, kids as young as 12 years old can get an obortion for free with out their parents knowing.

Now, there are two sides to the issue. One is moral, one is intellectual.

Instead of the gov't or judge dictating the fate of how the state will handle child abortions, it is voted on a propsostion and the PEOPLE shall decide. Citizens can get educated on the pro's and cons and vote. And this includes people who do NOT have kids.

You just don't get the bigger picture of democracy do you?

We should be voting on propositions in order to bring back democrocy to our parliment.

Pointless meandering bullshit aside, I assume, then that this all boils down to wanting to have a system like the U.S. where just about any loon can get any looney idea onto the ballot (at taxpayer's expense) so that we can pretend our democracy is more democratic than we pretend it is now?

Meh. We live in a society where people choose leaders based on how they look on TV or to what degree they think they'd like to have a beer with said leader. These are not people I want making important decisions about the country (or even unimportant ones like SSM).

Even the Founding Fathers of the U.S. distrusted mob rule, which is why they built so many checks into their system to prevent it.

Oh and as for the dig about not"getting" democracy: I get it a helluva lot more than you. Each individual is free to make their own decisions. But they are not and should not be free to make decisions for others simply because they have the numbers to force their will upon others.

[mikedavid00]

Actually, no, it's not my opinion. It's how government works.

Correction. it's how OUR gov't works.

Below is how a democratic gov't works.

Proposition 83. Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring -- State of California (Initiative Statute - Majority Approval Required)

Pass: 5,200,908 / 70.5% Yes votes ...... 2,176,147 / 29.5% No votes

Should California amend existing laws relating to violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters to increase penalties and monitoring?

Proposition 84. Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements -- State of California (Bond Initiative Statute - Majority Approval Required)

Pass: 3,879,523 / 53.7% Yes votes ...... 3,351,357 / 46.3% No votes

Should the state issue $5.4 billion in bonds for a wide variety of projects related to water safety, rivers, beaches, levees, watersheds, and parks and forests?

Proposition 85. Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required)

Fail: 3,405,458 / 46.0% Yes votes ...... 4,000,442 / 54.0% No votes

Should the California Constitution be amended to require notification of the parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion?

Proposition 86. Tax on Cigarettes -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute - Majority Approval Required)

Fail: 3,607,506 / 48.0% Yes votes ...... 3,902,558 / 52.0% No votes

Should the state impose an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children, and expand tobacco use prevention programs?

Hmmm.. the above was intersting. looking into it, it seems that the voters made a good descision:

http://www.noprop86.org/video/nobid_flash.html

http://www.noprop86.org/video/uninsured_flash.html

Proposition 87. Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute - Majority Approval Required)

Fail: 3,372,394 / 45.3% Yes votes ...... 4,079,106 / 54.7% No votes

Should California establish a $4 billion Clean Alternative Energy Program to reduce California's oil and gasoline consumption by 25 percent through incentives for alternative energy, education, and training?

Proposition 88. Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute - Majority Approval Required)

Fail: 1,687,614 / 23.1% Yes votes ...... 5,631,590 / 76.9% No votes

Should the California Constitution be amended to levy an annual $50 real property tax on most parcels with the funds allocated to five K-12 education programs?

Proposition 89. Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits -- State of California (Initiative Statute - Majority Approval Required)

Fail: 1,847,919 / 25.5% Yes votes ...... 5,394,826 / 74.5% No votes

Should eligible candidates for state elective offices receive public campaign funding that is supported by new taxes on corporations and financial institutions, and should contribution limits be imposed on those candidates that do not receive public campaign funding?

Proposition 90. Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required)

Fail: 3,456,431 / 47.7% Yes votes ...... 3,790,344 / 52.3% No votes

Should the California Constitution be amended to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules, and limit government authority to take ownership of private property?

[Black Dog]

Correction. it's how OUR gov't works.

Below is how a democratic gov't works.

Or doesn't work, as the case may be.

Pointing out the differences between System A and System B is not an argument to adopt System B. I don't think the initiative system is an effective way for government to operate and you haven't given me any reason to believe otherwise.

Oh: one more thing. I think there's a case to be made for greater public say on important policy issues. I just don't think SSM meets that standard.

[mikedavid00]

Correction. it's how OUR gov't works.

Below is how a democratic gov't works.

Or doesn't work, as the case may be.

Lol! How doesn't in work when people are voting? hehehe.. it dooesn't work better than that!

I know, Black Dog the dictator has it all figured out. He'll provess unto the people what they shall think and do. Kidding aside, I don't know how you could say open voting is better than closed door dictatoriships.. lol..

Pointing out the differences between System A and System B is not an argument to adopt System B.

In your personal opinion.

I don't think the initiative system is an effective way for government to operate and you haven't given me any reason to believe otherwise.

Well we are about to have an election over closed door politics in the house that are not reprsenting the people. This upsets me because after 9 months of goverment, we are having elections threatened over political football and non-important issues. Non confidence is meant to be an absolute last resort. Has the CPC done anything so outrageous to deserve the disruption of our gov't like this?

The Parlimentary system was not meant to be used in this matter. It undermines the principles of the system.

Oh: one more thing. I think there's a case to be made for greater public say on important policy issues. I just don't think SSM meets that standard.

Again that's your opinion.

I feel that everyone should have to vote. It should be civic duty like it is in Australia. We should all get involved and in propositions and vote on them yearly. This is the only way to ensure that people educate themselves on our issues. Most people don't understand the financial trouble we're in when it comes to healthcare. If there was a vote, people would get educated on these issues and vote accordingly, thus having a better understanding of what 'Canada' is.

You might be suprised that once they get educated on these things, they would vote in favor of privatised healthcare and insurance.

Understand, this forum is for entertainment (and to maybe to learn a bit). But that's all. We have no say in what goes on. We are just spectators.

If we were able to vote on propositions, there would be something getting done here on this forum.

[Black Dog]

Lol! How doesn't in work when people are voting? hehehe.. it dooesn't work better than that!

I know, Black Dog the dictator has it all figured out. He'll provess unto the people what they shall think and do. Kidding aside, I don't know how you could say open voting is better than closed door dictatoriships.. lol..

The argument isn't over whether direct democracy is more representative than representative systems like ours. The question is whether direct democracy is a good way to determine public policy. Just because a proposition system is more democratic does not mean it is also more effective or efficient.

In your personal opinion.

No: logically. Different /= better.

Well we are about to have an election over closed door politics in the house that are not reprsenting the people. This upsets me because after 9 months of goverment, we are having elections threatened over political football and non-important issues. Non confidence is meant to be an absolute last resort. Has the CPC done anything so outrageous to deserve the disruption of our gov't like this?

The Parlimentary system was not meant to be used in this matter. It undermines the principles of the system.

We all know the system has flaws. Every system does. but you're going to have to make a stronger case for your perferred system than just saying how much the current one sucks.

Oh and you're wrong about non-confidence motions. If they weren't intended to be used in that matter, we wouldn't have a provision for them.

I feel that everyone should have to vote. It should be civic duty like it is in Australia. We should all get involved and in propositions and vote on them yearly. This is the only way to ensure that people educate themselves on our issues. Most people don't understand the financial trouble we're in when it comes to healthcare. If there was a vote, people would get educated on these issues and vote accordingly, thus having a better understanding of what 'Canada' is.

Now we're getting to the meat of the matter (though I still dunno why SSM should be a matter for the people). I don't see the correlation between compulsary voting and a more informed electorate. I have no reason to suspect that someone who can't be arsed to vote now would suddenly immerse themselves in the issues because they are obligated to vote when they could be watching American Idol instead.

But, to step back for a moment, you're essentially calling for three changes to the system:

1) ballot initiatives

2) compulsary voting

3) fixed election dates (a neccessary collary to 1 and 2, since otherwise we'd be running to the polls whenever some yahoo has a successful bid for a ballot initiative).

Those are major changes and I don't know if we could do it even if we wanted to. AI'm not even sure we want to. Again: basically, I don't want the people who are making the aforementioned American Idol the top show on the telly to be making important policy decisions that could affect me for the rest of my life.

[mikedavid00]

The question is whether direct democracy is a good way to determine public policy. Just because a proposition system is more democratic does not mean it is also more effective or efficient.

I think the goal is to have it become more democratic more than efficiency or anything else.

Just take a look at this democrocy. Take a look and see how it's like for voters to be able to vote on clean fuel acts. (look at how old clinton is BTW, he looks like Bob Rae)

1) ballot initiatives

2) compulsary voting

3) fixed election dates (a neccessary collary to 1 and 2, since otherwise we'd be running to the polls whenever some yahoo has a successful bid for a ballot initiative).

What is so wrong about the above?

Those are major changes and I don't know if we could do it even if we wanted to.

I agree. There are too many people that are in power that would like to hold on to power. Not everyone will sign onto this. It was like Belinda asking the privelaged at the Libearl Leadership convention, if they would like to no longer be priveleaged and let their lowely counterparts in. Naturally, everyone voted against it.

basically, I don't want the people who are making the aforementioned American Idol the top show on the telly to be making important policy decisions that could affect me for the rest of my life.

You keep underestimating the intelligence of the people when they are presentted with both sides of the facts.

I asked me fiance 'Do you agree with Dalton McGuinty taking away drivers licenses from kids who drop out of school before 18yrs old?

She said 'well it sounds like a good way to keep them in school'. But see, she's not educated in the matter. If she was, i'm sure she would not think that was a very good idea.

They asked a majority of people who are non smokers to tax smokers in California for healthcare, obvsiouly, that's a no brainer... BUT, there was more to the story on the NO side of the argument and thus it diidn't pass.

http://www.noprop86.org/video/nobid_flash.html

People ended up being smarter in the end becuase they saw through the proposition.

If you looked at all the propositions, the people seemed to make good descisions.

(oh, and as far as the oil tax went for cleaner fuels, people saw through that too:

[Black Dog]

I think the goal is to have it become more democratic more than efficiency or anything else.

So you're asking people to buy into a massive change that won't actually improve how we're governed, but will simply increase the amount of citizen participation. I don't see that getting too far.

What is so wrong about the above?

Do you mean other than the fact that none would actually improve how we're goverened?

I think i've made my objections clear, if not, I can go over it again.

You keep underestimating the intelligence of the people when they are presented with both sides of the facts.

Incorrect. I am skeptical about people's willingness to seek out both sides of an issue. I also doubt, in this age of image politics and emotional button-pushing, that we'd see much intelligent discussion of the issues in the public sphere.

People ended up being smarter in the end becuase they saw through the proposition.

If you looked at all the propositions, the people seemed to make good descisions.

You mean "decisions you agree with" not necessarily the decisions that are best for society.