Comments on: Jesus Advocates: Direct Democracy http://ladyboyjesus.com/commentary/jesus-recommends-direct-democracy/ The finest marshmallows melted over charcoal fires of delicious darkness Mon, 09 Jan 2012 01:45:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jesus http://ladyboyjesus.com/commentary/jesus-recommends-direct-democracy/comment-page-1/#comment-1482 Jesus Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:34:47 +0000 http://ladyboyjesus.com/?p=969#comment-1482 Good point Karl, but as Dan Savage has pointed out - the initial vote on this issue in California was proposition 22, a ballot initiative in 2000 which made gay marriage illegal and passed by a 22% margin. Proposition 8 by contrast was approved by a 4% margin, demonstrating the gradual shift in public opinion. Ultimately gay marriage will be legalised in California, and in other states across the US - and that change will be by the evolution of public opinion through debate (and the experience of civilisation not collapsing where gay marriage does exist). An advertising battle - with a fairly owned and open media, something we don't yet have, is just another way of describing a public discussion. A discussion which I believe would grow in engagement and complexity, given actual access by the citizenry to the reins of power. It's likely that direct democracy would have a federalising influence, creating widely differing civil rights and economic circumstances (tax levels etc), by geographic region. But is this such a bad thing? Assuming fundamental human rights are protected, and free movement of people allowed, shouldn't we all have the right to create the statues regulating our communities, be they more permissive, or less, than the national median? Put another way, if not the public, who gets to decide such matters? The judiciary, an unelected elite whose political persuasion depends on when their predecessors happened to die? Aside: I must fix this comment box soon, it is a horror! Good point Karl, but as Dan Savage has pointed out – the initial vote on this issue in California was proposition 22, a ballot initiative in 2000 which made gay marriage illegal and passed by a 22% margin. Proposition 8 by contrast was approved by a 4% margin, demonstrating the gradual shift in public opinion. Ultimately gay marriage will be legalised in California, and in other states across the US – and that change will be by the evolution of public opinion through debate (and the experience of civilisation not collapsing where gay marriage does exist).

An advertising battle – with a fairly owned and open media, something we don’t yet have, is just another way of describing a public discussion. A discussion which I believe would grow in engagement and complexity, given actual access by the citizenry to the reins of power.

It’s likely that direct democracy would have a federalising influence, creating widely differing civil rights and economic circumstances (tax levels etc), by geographic region. But is this such a bad thing? Assuming fundamental human rights are protected, and free movement of people allowed, shouldn’t we all have the right to create the statues regulating our communities, be they more permissive, or less, than the national median?

Put another way, if not the public, who gets to decide such matters? The judiciary, an unelected elite whose political persuasion depends on when their predecessors happened to die?

Aside: I must fix this comment box soon, it is a horror!

]]> By: Karl http://ladyboyjesus.com/commentary/jesus-recommends-direct-democracy/comment-page-1/#comment-1481 Karl Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:22:44 +0000 http://ladyboyjesus.com/?p=969#comment-1481 Does the Prop 8 fiasco not stand as an example as to why direct democracy shouldn't exist? Would direct democracy not immediately descend into essentially an advertising battle? Does the Prop 8 fiasco not stand as an example as to why direct democracy shouldn’t exist? Would direct democracy not immediately descend into essentially an advertising battle?

]]>