[gulfstream81]

"A National Protest Against Prop 8 organized by JoinTheImpact.com is scheduled for this Saturday. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which opponents say donated more than $20 million to the Yes on 8 campaign, has already become a focus of protests, with demonstrators gathered around Mormon temples not only in California but across the country.

The Mormon Church is not the only group being singled out for criticism. African-Americans, 70% of whom voted yes on Proposition 8, according to a CNN exit poll, have become a target. According to eyewitness reports published on the Internet, racial epithets have been used against African-Americans at protests in California, directed even at blacks who are fighting to repeal Proposition 8."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

Seriously. This changes my whole view of gays and lesbians. I can't respect any group that doesn't respect our democratic process and then targets people and organizations with attacks. Grow up.

[macforray]

I'm not exactly please with their less than honorable tactics, but I believe the purpose of any democracy is to protect the rights of the majority while allowing the voices of the minority to be heard.

They have a right to voice their opinions, displeasure and expectaions. I just don't agree with how they are doing it.

[gradient]

Edit: I made a post here but have decided that I don't want to be a part of the conversation. Buh bye.

[iMOTOR]

African-Americans, 70% of whom voted yes on Proposition 8, according to a CNN exit poll, have become a target.

Wow, talk about tolerance.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by gulfstream81 

Seriously. This changes my whole view of gays and lesbians. I can't respect any group that doesn't respect our democratic process and then targets people and organizations with attacks. Grow up.

I fail to see how Prop 8 opponents, including myself, aren't "respecting our democratic process."

Let me go through each thing that article discusses:

• "Urging the judicial system to reconsider the results of the Nov. 4 referendum"
  
  Even if their claims were meritless, judicial review is entirely consistent with democracy.
  
  
• "A National Protest Against Prop 8" + "Demonstrators gathered around Mormon temples not only in California but across the country."
  
  Again, protest and dissent is entirely consistent with democracy.
  
  
• "Racial epithets have been used against African-Americans"
  
  This isn't representative of the people protesting.
  
  
• "Gay activists have begun publishing lists online exposing individuals and organizations who have donated money in support of Proposition 8"
  
  Boycotts again, are entirely consistent with democracy. And there's no physical threat to any of these people from the gay mafia, unlike the threats from right-wing abortion doctor murderers.

[OldManMac]

While I certainly don't condone many of the tactics, as this issue will eventually be settled in court, I can certainly be empathetic towards the gay community. There are no logical reasons that they should be denied the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, and using the excuse that a majority of voters believe otherwise isn't going to stand.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by gulfstream81 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

Seriously. This changes my whole view of gays and lesbians. I can't respect any group that doesn't respect our democratic process and then targets people and organizations with attacks. Grow up.

Just how "democratic" was the process that allowed a large number of individuals from outside the state of California (predominantly Mormons from Utah) to have an influence on a political measure that applies only to citizens of the state of California? That doesn't seem very democratic to me having people from outside the state use their time, money, and other resources to have an undue influence on an election not applicable to them.

While only citizens of California got to vote on the ballot measure, many non-citizens of California got to have a say in influencing how citizens would vote on the matter and that should not have happened. If a state is putting a measure on the ballot applicable only to citizens of that state then only citizens of that state should be able to advocate for or against that ballot measure with their time, money, and other resources.

And if you are okay with citizens in one state getting involved in a political issue within another state then you won't mind my advocacy--from a citizen of New York state--for a proposition to remove the LDS church's tax-exempt status in California or my advocacy for a proposition to outlaw divorce in the state of California.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

just how "democratic" was the process that allowed a large number of individuals from outside the state of california (predominantly mormons from utah) to have an influence on a political measure that applies only to citizens of the state of california? That doesn't seem very democratic to me having people from outside the state use their time, money, and other resources to have an undue influence on an election not applicable to them.

While only citizens of california got to vote on the ballot measure, many non-citizens of california got to have a say in influencing how citizens would vote on the matter and that should not have happened. If a state is putting a measure on the ballot applicable only to citizens of that state then only citizens of that state should be able to advocate for or against that ballot measure with their time, money, and other resources.

And if you are okay with citizens in one state getting involved in a political issue within another state then you won't mind my advocacy--from a citizen of new york state--for a proposition to remove the lds church's tax-exempt status in california or my advocacy for a proposition to outlaw divorce in the state of california.

qft!

[BoingoBongo]

It's not democracy, it's discrimination.

Honestly, this prop shouldn't even be allowed on the ballot. The people do not have the right to decide whether or not they want to enact discriminatory laws.

If Prop 8 had aimed to prevent black people from marrying, it would have never made it to the ballot. Denying a specific group of people a basic right is discrimination, and it's disgusting that this is even debatable.

What year is it again?

[tie]

Originally Posted by gulfstream81 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

Seriously. This changes my whole view of gays and lesbians. I can't respect any group that doesn't respect our democratic process and then targets people and organizations with attacks. Grow up.

What exactly don't you agree with here? If the Mormon church spent $20 million to try to void your marriage, wouldn't you be mad at them? I expect you might even join a protest march. (If you didn't, I'd wonder what was wrong with you.)

Protesting is part of the civil society that makes our country strong, and is absolutely not synonymous with "not respecting our democratic process." Where would our country be today if we hadn't had civil rights activism? Obama definitely wouldn't be president-elect.

Obviously, I don't think that a few people using racial epithets means that "African Americans have become a target." The protests have mostly been organizing boycotts. If your business is dumb enough to give money to try to overturn other people's marriages, you should expect people to boycott you. If the Sacramento theatre director thinks it is okay to give $1,000 to overturn other people's marriages, then he should expect to lose his job, and should count himself lucky that his own marriage isn't being overturned.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by macforray 

I'm not exactly please with their less than honorable tactics, but I believe the purpose of any democracy is to protect the rights of the majority while allowing the voices of the minority to be heard.

They have a right to voice their opinions, displeasure and expectaions. I just don't agree with how they are doing it.

One purpose of our Republic (the US is not a democracy) is to protect the minority from ever being subject to tyranny of the majority.

[hyteckit]

What? Isn't democracy about giving voice to minorities. To allow them to organize and protest?

When is protesting against existing laws being anti-democracy?

When women and blacks protested for equal rights, and against existing laws, were they being anti-democracy too?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

While I certainly don't condone many of the tactics, as this issue will eventually be settled in court, I can certainly be empathetic towards the gay community. There are no logical reasons that they should be denied the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, and using the excuse that a majority of voters believe otherwise isn't going to stand.

They aren't being denied the same rights for the same things. This has been gone over AGAIN AND AGAIN. It's no wonder Prop 8 passed when it's opponents aren't even capable of focusing on the facts and instead rely on age old logically fallacious moral equivalencies to try to persuade.

Originally Posted by BoingoBongo 

It's not democracy, it's discrimination.
Honestly, this prop shouldn't even be allowed on the ballot. The people do not have the right to decide whether or not they want to enact discriminatory laws.

Wow..that's scary. Laws by their very nature are "discriminatory". They discriminate between what society views as permissible and what isn't. There's really nothing "new" there. There is no constitutional protection for sexual behavior or preference, which is why the racial comparisons never really fly in an intellectually honest way.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What? Isn't democracy about giving voice to minorities. To allow them to organize and protest?

When is protesting against existing laws being anti-democracy?

When women and blacks protested for equal rights, and against existing laws, were they being anti-democracy too?

The US government isn't a democracy, it's a Republic. As is California's government.

You have the right to assemble and associate. You have the right to petition your government.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They aren't being denied the same rights for the same things.

Yes, they are.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This has been gone over AGAIN AND AGAIN.

Doesn't make it any less wrong.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There is no constitutional protection for sexual behavior or preference, which is why the racial comparisons never really fly in an intellectually honest way.

It is genetic for many people. They don't choose to be gay any more than someone can choose to be black. Denying someone the right to marry because of their sexual preference is wrong. It is wrong in the exact same way as non-whites were prevented from drinking from white-only drinking fountains. Yes, it's the same water. Yes, homosexual couples technically have the same rights as heterosexual couples, but it is still Jim Crow; it is still "separate but equal."

It is wrong.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The US government isn't a democracy, it's a Republic.

Incorrectamundo.

(Last paragraph) Looks like you have some Wikipedia article editing to get on!

A constitutional republic is a form of democracy, but not all democracies are constitutional republics.

[Shaddim]

It's wrong that they can't marry, but it's just as wrong that they're using tactics like this to try and circumvent the democratic process.

I'm extremely disappointed with, and ashamed of, both sides

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It is genetic for many people.

I still don't buy that, and yes I have read papers trying to explain it.

It's a choice, but it doesn't make it any less valid.

[The Crook]

How are they circumventing the Democratic process?

I quoted everything mentioned in that Time article, and not one of them were anti-democratic.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I still don't buy that, and yes I have read papers trying to explain it.

It's a choice, but it doesn't make it any less valid.

It's a choice for some people. I'm glad you agree with me on the validity of the argument, but I still want to explain. All of ancient Greece wasn't genetically gay, it was a social norm. Some people were gay for their own personal and/or political reasons. It's not that scientists are trying to explain it, we know of several chromosomes that are partially responsible for sexual preference. Scientists can literally change the sexual orientation of animals by turning on and off parts of their genetic structure, they know these genes also exist in human primates, and they know some people are gay because of their genetic makeup.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I still don't buy that, and yes I have read papers trying to explain it.

It's a choice, but it doesn't make it any less valid.

So, tell me, when did you make a choice to be heterosexual?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Incorrectamundo.

(Last paragraph) Looks like you have some Wikipedia article editing to get on!

I don't edit the Encyclopedia of Mob Truth. I know enough to know when it's incorrect. Democracy was pure evil to the founders of the Republic of the United States of America.

James Madison explained the difference between a democracy and a republic in two of the essays he wrote for The Federalist Papers. In No. 14, he distinguished the two this way: “In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents,” he wrote. “A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.” In No. 39, while seeking to determine “the distinctive characters of the republican form,” Madison wrote that the term has been misapplied by many political writers. Holland, “in which no particle of supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic.” The same was true of Venice, where “a small body of hereditary nobles” exercised “absolute power over the great body of the people.” Even Poland, which Madison called “a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms,” has been mistakenly called a republic. Britain was a mixture of republican, monarchical, and aristocratic principles. Madison asserted that all previous writers on politics had been wrong; he declared that a republic was, nothing more and nothing less, than “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.”

The founders also followed the advice of John Adams, who in his pamphlet Thoughts on Government (also published in 1776) had argued that “there is no good government but what is republican.” Adams’ definition of republic was different from Madison’s – he applied the term to any constitutionally-limited government, “a government of laws, and not of men – but in his suggestions for the new American constitutions, he recommended a representative government, not a democracy.

Article IV of the U.S. Constitution provides that the national government shall guarantee to each state “a Republican Form of Government” – not a democracy.

The whole reason for the 1787 convention was to "provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored,” namely “the turbulence and trials of democracy.” (quoting Edmund Randolph, member of the 1787 convention.) Samuel Adams championed the new federal Constitution in his own state, Massachusetts, because it was not democratic: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself,” he noted, echoing the classical model’s theory, “There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” Alexander Hamilton, in a June 1788 speech urging his fellow New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution, declared: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” And James Madison, writing in Federalist essay, No. 10, noted that “democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.”

In democracies, the majority have unlimited power. Republics protect against the tyranny of the majority.

Democracies don't secure the rights of individuals. Republics do. The Encyclopedia of Mob Truth is wrong again, the two are incompatible, one cannot be a subset of the other.

[hyteckit]

And all along, I thought we (USA) are spreading democracy around the world including Iraq.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Just how "democratic" was the process that allowed a large number of individuals from outside the state of California (predominantly Mormons from Utah) to have an influence on a political measure that applies only to citizens of the state of California? That doesn't seem very democratic to me having people from outside the state use their time, money, and other resources to have an undue influence on an election not applicable to them.

While only citizens of California got to vote on the ballot measure, many non-citizens of California got to have a say in influencing how citizens would vote on the matter and that should not have happened. If a state is putting a measure on the ballot applicable only to citizens of that state then only citizens of that state should be able to advocate for or against that ballot measure with their time, money, and other resources.

And if you are okay with citizens in one state getting involved in a political issue within another state then you won't mind my advocacy--from a citizen of New York state--for a proposition to remove the LDS church's tax-exempt status in California or my advocacy for a proposition to outlaw divorce in the state of California.

George Soros and friends have been doing this for years. They bankrolled "medical marijuana" initiatives in six states in 1998 alone
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...llot102098.htm

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by gulfstream81 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

Seriously. This changes my whole view of gays and lesbians. I can't respect any group that doesn't respect our democratic process and then targets people and organizations with attacks. Grow up.

I'll echo what many have said. Obviously any racial attacks are despicable, but it doesn't mean that there's anything inconsistent with democracy about their actions. For a democracy to function without becoming mob rule, then minority rights must be protected.

I really don't understand why any of us straight people think this is any of our business. How exactly does this have anything to do with us?

[vmarks]

Not a thing at all, until it's forced upon children in the classroom, where it shouldn't even come up at all - except that school systems and private businesses that sell curricula to public schools intend to push it as an agenda item.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=96032318

The California superintendent of schools says it would have had no effect at all - except that students took a day off from classes to attend a ceremony, so there was some effect. And there was an effect in the Massachusetts schools 2nd grade classroom, which prompted the advertisement mentioned in that link.

This is the point of the words "behind closed doors." -- I have no interest in what happens behind doors on private property between consenting adults. I do oppose indoctrination of children by the state.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

For a democracy to function without becoming mob rule, then minority rights must be protected.

Democracy is mob rule.

Republicanism protects minority rights from tyranny of the majority.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Democracy is mob rule.

Republicanism protects minority rights from tyranny of the majority.

Yes, but in common parlance when we talk about democracy, we mean constitutional democracies like our own with individual rights protected by a constitution.

And I agree with you about the above post. I'm extremely leery of any sort of values education in the schools. It's yet another controversial item left on the door step of the schools that shouldn't be there. If our schools could just focus on this pesky education thing instead of being tasked to raise children for parents then I think we might be able to better address standards.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

George Soros and friends have been doing this for years. They bankrolled "medical marijuana" initiatives in six states in 1998 alone
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...llot102098.htm

The Chinese did the same thing back when they were giving all that illegal cash to the Democrats in 1996 to influence the election. This is nothing new.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yes, they are.

No, they aren't.

It is genetic for many people. They don't choose to be gay any more than someone can choose to be black.

People can choose what they do. They can not choose the color of their skin. We ALL have desires that we don't choose. We ALL have the ability to choose to act on them or not. It doesn't matter if the desire was implanted due to some genetic abnormality or from a learned response. If due to some genetic trait, someone finds they have the desire to eat human flesh does the fact that it's "genetic" excuse someone from controlling their desires?

Denying someone the right to marry because of their sexual preference is wrong. It is wrong in the exact same way as non-whites were prevented from drinking from white-only drinking fountains.

When white and black people drink, the very same normal biological function of the action is served by ingesting the water. They are both going to get the very same benefit from the water due to the effect water has on the nature of human beings regardless of the color of their skin.

The same logic does not apply when comparing same-sex and opposite-sex long term unions. You can argue that you BELIEVE that despite the fact that they are unequal in many important ways that they should still be afforded the right, but really can't argue that they are logical equals in every substantial way. It simply isn't true. That's why smart folks wanting "same-sex marriage" haven't gotten it to the Supreme Court, as they did back with "Loving".

For it to be "Jim Crow", the things in question would actually have to be equal in most all substantial ways. That's not the case with this. I'm sorry, but sometimes even "equality" isn't fair.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I still don't buy that, and yes I have read papers trying to explain it.

It's a choice, but it doesn't make it any less valid.

Oh please. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true. I guarantee you I didn't choose to be gay. It has caused me considerable grief and hardship. Why would I choose that. What I did choose was to be true to myself.

And just to clear things up. It's not a preference. It's a proclivity.

As OldManMac stated, when did you choose to become a heterosexual?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People can choose what they do. They can not choose the color of their skin. We ALL have desires that we don't choose. We ALL have the ability to choose to act on them or not. It doesn't matter if the desire was implanted due to some genetic abnormality or from a learned response. If due to some genetic trait, someone finds they have the desire to eat human flesh does the fact that it's "genetic" excuse someone from controlling their desires?

That's got to be the most insulting load of crap I'd read yet from you. Comparing homosexuals to human flesh-eaters. Wow! That's a new one for me.

So the fact that I'm gay is boiled down to "desires" that I probably shouldn't want to have in the first place?

[OldManMac]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lleanne...16313/sizes/l/

[macforray]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Democracy is mob rule.

Republicanism protects minority rights from tyranny of the majority.

tyranny |ˈtirənē|
noun ( pl. -nies)
cruel and oppressive government or rule : refugees who managed to escape Nazi tyranny | the removal of the regime may be the end of a tyranny.
• a nation under such cruel and oppressive government.
• cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control : she resented his rages and his tyranny | figurative the tyranny of the nine-to-five day | his father's tyrannies.
• (esp. in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.

I'm confused. I don't see it as tyranny at all.

[nonhuman]

You've never heard the phrase 'tyranny of the majority' before? It's the idea that, in a true democracy, a majority can easily strip a minority of their rights. If, for example, white people decide that black people are sub-human and should be treated as property, those black people are living under a tyrannical system even though it may be a democracy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

As OldManMac stated, when did you choose to become a heterosexual?

Chuckit has the best analogy for this. Did he choose to like broccoli or was he born liking broccoli.

Common sense would tell me probably neither.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I don't edit the Encyclopedia of Mob Truth. I know enough to know when it's incorrect. Democracy was pure evil to the founders of the Republic of the United States of America.

James Madison....

How about the Encyclopedia Brittanica (of Mob Truth, apparently)?

Even among his contemporaries, Madison’s refusal to apply the term democracy to representative governments, even those based on broad electorates, was aberrant.

That article should answer all of your questions.

I don't care that you have to click through 1000 log-in screens to view it. I'm right and you're wrong. Your view is not the standard view for what democracy means. Not now and not then. You're wrong.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

That's got to be the most insulting load of crap I'd read yet from you. Comparing homosexuals to human flesh-eaters. Wow! That's a new one for me.

What? Zombies don't have rights too?

If you're not going to take this seriously...

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

One purpose of our Republic (the US is not a democracy) ...

Yes, it is. Republic and democracy are not mutual exclusives.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Yes, it is. Republic and democracy are not mutual exclusives.

I tHink Vmarks like Republicans better than Democrats therefore he is trying to convince everybody that the USA is a republic and not a democracy. :-)

Seriously for all purpose the USA is a democracy, as it is commonly understood in the 21 st century. AS far as 18th century definitions are concerned...

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

AS far as 18th century definitions are concerned...

Madison's definition in the 18th century was aberrant even then.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

I tHink Vmarks like Republicans better than Democrats therefore he is trying to convince everybody that the USA is a republic and not a democracy. :-)

Seriously for all purpose the USA is a democracy, as it is commonly understood in the 21 st century. AS far as 18th century definitions are concerned...

The problem vmarks is addressing here is that there's still some misunderstanding of what being a "democracy" in the American sense entails. The facts that people make statements about "the will of the majority" and complain about the Electoral College are symptoms of this. So people like vmarks and I find it instructive to use the more precise term "republic" rather than explain that "democracy" as applied to our country isn't meant to refer to mob rule despite the fact that that's what everyone is taught democracy is in school.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The problem vmarks is addressing here is that there's still some misunderstanding of what being a "democracy" in the American sense entails. The facts that people make statements about "the will of the majority" and complain about the Electoral College are symptoms of this. So people like vmarks and I find it instructive to use the more precise term "republic" rather than explain that "democracy" as applied to our country isn't meant to refer to mob rule despite the fact that that's what everyone is taught democracy is in school.

The problem is that vmarks is saying quite literally that our country isn't a democracy.

You seem to be saying, quite rightly, that our country is a type of democracy, a republic.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

That's got to be the most insulting load of crap I'd read yet from you. Comparing homosexuals to human flesh-eaters. Wow! That's a new one for me.

I wasn't doing that (I compared the logic, not the people), but you probably already know that. Thanks for playing.

So the fact that I'm gay is boiled down to "desires" that I probably shouldn't want to have in the first place?

If you want to have them or not, you're free to act on them. What we aren't free from in this country is freedom from being judged based on what we choose to do.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I wasn't doing that (I compared the logic, not the people), but you probably already know that.

Well, okay. WRT your original question.

Presuming one could take care of the issue of supply, and we had the freedom to put our health at risk as we see fit, the answer is: dig in.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

So, tell me, when did you make a choice to be heterosexual?

Who says I have? I have sex with who I want, currently I'm with women. It's not likely that I'd start relations with a man in the foreseeable future, but I've learned that anything is possible. See, I don't give a good-***damn about orientation. Who a person is sleeping with means nothing to me.

/shrug

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Oh please. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true. I guarantee you I didn't choose to be gay. It has caused me considerable grief and hardship. Why would I choose that. What I did choose was to be true to myself.

And just to clear things up. It's not a preference. It's a proclivity.

As OldManMac stated, when did you choose to become a heterosexual?

See above. Just live your life and do what you want, tell society where to stick it. That's what I do, and I guarantee we get more flack.

[macforray]

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...y/#post3748172

Again, I want to be clear that the issue I have is with the actions of those that lost. It has nothing to do with their sexual orientation or preferences. Please see the link above to one of my previous posts regarding homosexuality.

I voted for McCain / Palin. They lost. I personally don't like the outlook for the next four years as it might affect my family and I. I do plan, as a patriotic American, to stand behind the wishes of the majority and support the new administration.

The people have spoken. Better luck next time.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by macforray 

The people have spoken. Better luck next time.

Our country's history is full of positions about which the people have spoken, and a whole lot of those positions were later reversed. This too will be, and our ancestors will look back and wonder how we could have been so ignorant.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by macforray 

I do plan, as a patriotic American, to stand behind the wishes of the majority and support the new administration.

What exactly does "supporting the new administration" entail?

If McCain won, I would certainly "support" his election to the Presidency as a legitimate outcome of our democratic process. But I don't "support" his agenda. Just because someone wins an election, it doesn't mean that I give up my right to disagree, protest, demonstrate, or otherwise dissent.