When A Gov't Begins Denying RIGHTS to Certain People

[Beetwasher]

Or even begins merely THINKING of denying the right to pursue happiness from certain people, when they are not criminal, it oughta start ringing some pretty fucking serious alarm bells.

I don't even fucking want to hear it anymore from anyone about how it's not appropriate to compare these scumbags to the Nazi's.

What we have here now is the new, improved, friendlier fascism! Now with less obvious or blatantly racist, bigoted propoganda! More appealing scapegoats! What's the next right that will be taken from which group of people and to what end?

When do people realize that this is systematic?

[name not needed]

1. Too bad

the American people are too busy watching Faux News and shopping at Wal Mart to give a shit.

[lastknowngood]

2. Only to those with brains

let's see now what historic figure blamed the country's problems on a religious minority which could be easily identified and as not from the pure race and also the "sexual deviants". Now who could that be?
Looks more and more like 1937 all the time

[Beetwasher]

3. Damn Straight

I don't even fucking want to hear it anymore from anyone about how it's not appropriate to compare these scumbags to the Nazi's.

What we have here now is the new, improved, friendlier fascism! Now with less obvious or blatantly racist, bigoted propoganda! More appealing scapegoats! What's the next right that will be taken from which group of people and to what end? When do people realize that this is systematic?

[number6]

4. Its about time to start...

ringing some pretty fucking serious alarm bells.
:kick:

[salinen]

5. Really!

Imagine devoting a portion of SOTU to discriminate in full view. What's worse than a theological fascism?

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. It's usually to lay the groundwork to deny rights to more "certain people

Your best bet here is to use vocabulary. Don't call it "denying rights."

Call it "recognizing dignity." Draft your legislation carefully, and for added assurance, make sure that your initial target group will be an easy sell.

Something most voters will be able to agree on.

Once you can get a law passed, you've established a precedent, you're in business! Then you can go back and tweak your original recognition of dignity package with an exception here, call it beefing it up, strengthening it, more dignity.

Now you're ready to recognize the dignity of your second group....

[Beetwasher]

7. Yup

Who could be against "Marriage Protection", or "Clean Forests", or "Clear Skies" or the "Patriot Act"...

[Astarho]

37. initial target is usually prisoners

You don't have to worry about recognizing their dignity, you say you're argueing "for the rights of victims over the criminals" Anyone who doesn't pass the law or disagrees is "soft on crime." There's your precident.

[camero]

8. Too many libertarians

Who don't realize that private power is just as dangerous as state power and both should be checked.

[Buffler]

17. libertarians?

what rights are libertarians trying to deny people?

[Democat]

27. Real Libertarians are not against gay marriage

What real Libertarian have you heard trying to take rights away from people?

[camero]

33. I'm not even going to argue with you

It's like talking to a Stalinist.

[Bush loves Jiang]

42. He actually has a point...

Unfortunately, that point is almost neutered by the fact that most libertarians are too brainwashed to give the Democrats a chance.

[camero]

45. He actually didn't get my point at all

Gays are not the only ones who are denied rights. They have no problem with Jim Crow laws and such out of the all-too-common "free association" excuse. Same with access to higher education.

They also have no problem with the rights of the slave to be free from want perpetuated by their employers.

Nor do they have a problem with the denial of the right of equal pay for women since the "employer" should have the "freedom" to set wages.

Civil rights without economic rights are no rights at all.

[kayell]

9. Some people won't realize it until

the nazis come for them.

I too don't want to hear anymore about not comparing them to the fascists whose game plan they are following.

[Kurovski]

10. Who was it who said "When fascism comes to America...

it will be wrapped in the flag"?

[Karenina]

11. Try this link:

http://truthout.org/docs_03/082103F.shtml

Be sure to note the DATE. We have been warned MANY TIMES OVER!!!

[Beetwasher]

12. Kick

n/t

[Karenina]

13. And another

:kick:

[Beetwasher]

14. BTW, thanks for that link

Terrific read...

19. Hey, my father voted for that guy

no wonder, I'm such a rebel.

[Bush loves Jiang]

44. :(

He's among my least favourite progressives.

He trusted Stalin.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

24. Huey Long

[Edge]

15. It's been ringing some pretty fucking serious alarm bells...

for me since January of 2001.

[Beetwasher]

23. Indeed, and welcom to DU!

n/t

[Buffler]

16. like

denying them the right to self defense with a firearm?

[Beetwasher]

18. Show me who wants to do that,

and how that's like denying someone the right to pursue happiness...Care to back up your bullshit? Or better yet, stay on topic...Your strawman is noted.

How pathetic.

[Buffler]

20. Topic

isn't the topic the denying of rights?!?!?

And if you can not think of some people in the government at all levels, and posters all over this board that want to do what I said you are not paying attention.

[Iris]

21. there's a whole other forum for your topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

[Beetwasher]

22. No, You're Not Paying Attention and It's Quite Pathetic

Stop w/ the strawman bullshit. Gun control is not denying your right to own one and no one is trying to ammend the constitution to stop you from owning a gun. Only someone who is deluded would think that gun control=ammending the constituion to ban gay marriage.

Do you think the gov't has the right to deny someone the right to pursue happiness? Do you think the gov't has the right to ammend the constitution and define the nature of only CERTAIN PEOPLE'S personal, private relationships? Replace Gays with Blacks or Jews and you should get the picture. Answer that and stay on topic or go post in a thread about gun control or just go away.

You would maybe have a point if Dems wanted to ammend the constitution to ban guns being owned by certain people, but since that's not the case or close to anything even resembling the case, you make no point at all. This exchange certainly sheds some light on your intellectual capacity though.

The topic is denying rights to CERTAIN people. Understand? Let me make this clear. One sub-group of people in this country are being singled out and having their right to pursue happiness taken away from them. One group of people is having the government FORCIBLY INTRUDE INTO THEIR LIVES AND DEMANDING THAT THEY CANNOT DEFINE THEIR PERSONAL PRIVATE RELATIONSHIPS THE WAY THE CHOOSE. Is that clear enough for you or do you need it spoken slowly?

You get more pathetic as you continue, but don't let that stop you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. All governments deny rights

At the time that America was hailed as the greatest democracy in the world, my ancestors were bullied and beaten and made second class citizens.

This lasted in a big way up through the '60s and '70s and still continues today.

Similarly, governments (many governments) limit gay rights.

I want to ask a question and not be flamed. First off, I long ago declared being for gay marriage. I see it as a Civil Rights issue and a moral one.

But where is the line drawn. Governments make legal choices that impact morality all the time. How do we distinguish them?

There are thousands of people who feel the same way about being denied their right to marry multiple partners. Just take a trip to small town Utah if you doubt me.

Are we denying their rights? Should we permit it? Should each wife or husband be equal under the law and get treated as such for all insurance and government functions?

What about suicide? Should people have a right to be able to kill themselves? Do they have to have complete and total rights over their bodies?

What about drug use? Should we make ALL drugs legal? Won't that encourage people to try out harder drugs?

What about prostitution? Right now, it's only legal in Reno, NV. Isn't that intruding on some women's ability to make a living?

I don't have answers to all these, nor do I see any of them as absolutes.

[Beetwasher]

28. My answer would be yes to all of those

if your right to pursue happiness is multiple wives, and they are not FORCED into the arrangement or SOLD, then go for it. If you can find multiple women to marry you or vice versa, if a woman can find multiple husbands, more power to you. There are lot's of people who already DO practice polygamy in this country. Interestingly enough they are heavy Republican supporters.

Everything else, drugs, prostitution, suicide is a definiet yes as far as I'm concerned, with reasonable regulations.

Gay marriage is VERY different than all of those, w/ the exception of polygamy, to which it's somewhat similar. "Gay" can be easily replaced with "black" or "jewish" and as a matter of fact WAS at one time. Interracial marriages were outlawed using practically the exact arguments we are now hearing.

I agree, govt's discriminate and ours has done so in the past and does still, but up until now, this country has been moving in the right direction by rectifying the denial of rights to certain segments of the population. I assume you feel a constitutional ammendment that denies a certain segment of the population from pursuing their idea of happiness would be a move in the wrong direction? Afer all, what is marriage and who gets to define it? The separation of church and state absolutely, unequivocally ensures that this gov't NEVER make that decision based on religious beliefs, if at all! Why do the Christians get to decide that everyone else has to adhere to a christian definition of marriage?

On Edit: OH!! You made me think of something I didn't think of before! Thank you! Speaking of the Utah polygamists, how do you think they would react to a constitutional ammendment that reads "marriage is between A man and A woman"? Depending on how it reads, they might be constitutionally banned from practicing polygamy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Polygamy

Get used to it. It will resurface a lot in this election. It's already illegal and most people not only oppose it, but are appalled by it.

And, no, I don't support it either. I am all for keeping marriage or civil unions between two consenting adults. TWO. CONSENTING. ADULTS.

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. The best (non-religious) argument against polygamy

has to do with the unique nature of legal unions.

Life partners, whether gay or straight, have certain legal rights pertinent to each other that really good friends or long-time lovers do not have.
Example:

If a woman is accused of a crime, her husband cannot be required to testify against her. If she is a lesbian, married to another woman, neither should her partner be required to testify against her.

This is an acknowledgement of the unique relationship between spouses.

If that woman has 7 husbands, that relationship is not unique. Should the state require the prosecutor to work around the fact that 7 people cannot be required to testify against her? Or shall the state deny her the right of NOT having her spouse, in this case, spouses, testify against her?

If her child needs an operation, and she is not available to give consent, which of her 7 husbands is the father? If they all share equal parental rights for the child, what if they disagree on whether the child can have the operation?

If she becomes incapacitated, which of her husbands should have her power of attorney?

You can construct your own hypotheticals, and you will always come back to that fundamental principle of a unique legal relationship between two people.

If her religious faith teaches that she must have multiple husbands, she should have the right to have them within the parameters of her religious institution, but if she wants a legal union of any kind, she can only have that with one of them.

The same would hold true of a gay man who wished to marry 6 other men. If it is a religious marriage, fine. But he must choose one with whom he will have a legal union in the eyes of the law.

[Beetwasher]

39. Definitely Good Arguments

n/t

[Beetwasher]

40. You think the idea of polygamy will surface a lot this election?

I know polygamy is illegal in most places in this country yet it is still practiced. Are the Utah polygamists skirting the law or is there some loophole or protection because of the religious nature of it? I honestly am not all that familiar with it...

Polygamy is definitely not my cup of tea either. I've seen numerous interesting articles and news stories on the Utah polygamists that are quite frankly appalling. Not necessarily because of the polygamy, but because essentially the women are being forced into at ages as young as 12 years old...It's really quite disturbing...There's an underground network set up to try to help save some of these young girls...

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Yes I do

I think it is the logical winger defense to legalizing gay marriage.

Lots of Americans support gay marriage or they might not oppose it at least. But polygamy is much more foreign to people and they will claim that opening the door to one opens the floodgates to the other.

[Beetwasher]

46. Interesting

I find it funny then that the Repubs have no problem taking money and support from polygamists...

I dunno if it's the LOGICAL defense, because if you think about it, it's NOT a logical defense. Gay marriage isn't supporting polygamy and as I've said, polygamy is already happening. But just because it's NOT logical, doesn't mean Repubs won't use it anyway, that's never stopped them before ;-)

[ninkasi]

26. I agree 100%

There is no justification for letting these current Nazi-clones intrude into relationships which should be the business of only those involved. Other people's private lives do not fall under what a government should be able to regulate.

My argument is this...if a thing is legal, like gay marriage or abortion, then people who are opposed don't have to marry a person of their own sex, or to have an abortion if they don't want one. They get to make the choice regarding their own lives.

If they are illegal, then what happens is that those opposed get to make choices not only for themselves, but for others as well. This is contrary to our Constitution, and to common sense.

As far as the negative comments by some about our comparison to Bush as being another Hitler, this is my feeling. No, Bush has not yet opened death camps in the United States. What he has done, though, is to cause death due to his illegal wars. In addition, to be perfectly honest, I truly believe his domestic policies cause death indirectly by the sheer inhumanity of enriching the rich and impoverishing the poor. People can and do die due to lack of medical attention, adequate food, and decent shelter.

It is wrong to deny equal rights to groups of people, when the government should be concerned with making equality a reality.

[Beetwasher]

29. When the Fascists First Took Over in Germany

They didn't immediately open death camps. BTW, the US DOES have it's first concentration camp. It's called Camp X-ray and it's located at Gitmo. Those people are impisoned indefinitely without charges or rights, their names are not released or known, they are beaten, tortured and they do die regularly. We can quibble all you want w/ semantics, but to me, that's a concentration camp.

[Dirk39]

32. What else?

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[Beetwasher]

38. Those Are Powerful Images

and speak louder than anything I can write.

[Baclava]

30. The states are making it systemic....

37 states have Defense of Marriage acts that say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Proposed constitutional amendments that would ban gay marriage have been introduced in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Michigan; one is expected soon in Alabama and maybe Idaho.

If Ohio enacts its pending Defense of Marriage act as expected, only 12 states, including Massachusetts, would be without one. The others are Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

[camero]

34. The SCOTUS interpretation of the ADA was the start

It now has spread to others. Geesh when will people pay attention.
Never, until it's them.

[neebob]

36. These rights have been systematically denied for a long time.

What's different besides (a) a minority that imagines itself to be the majority is now in power and (b) members of that minority - one of whom happens to occupy the highest office - are talking about it and proposing changing laws, thus making it "OK"? The numbers of right- and wrong-thinking people have not changed. Unfortunately, when it comes to gay rights and specifically the right to marry, the wrong thinkers are the majority and the right-thinking leaders are just as chicken as they ever were. What I don't get is why all the outrage is directed at the wrong thinkers.

[Bush loves Jiang]

41. A quote I like to use in describing these sorts of fascist...

"Smoother words, smoother words
Nicer suits, nicer suits
Don't be fooled, they're still wearing jackboots
The words get tired when you hear them every day
The Nazis changed but they never went away"'

Chumbawamba