Finally the GOP is starting to make headway into protecting marriage.

[rwarn17588]

Civil rights issues appearing on ballots is the only true way for the majority to be heard, not a small minority of our citizens in the form of corrupt politicians.

I couldn't disagree more. When you're dealing with rights of the minority, doing things by popular vote is a terrible way of doing things. When you're talking about rights, sometimes the government or courts have to intervene to protect or enforce those rights.

Remember, the United States is a republic, not a democracy, for a reason. Our politicians have sworn to uphold the Constitution, not simply follow the will of the majority.

If you did everything by majority rules, you'd still have blacks in the Deep South who still would be second-class citizens until about the 1990s. You'd still have miscegenation laws until maybe a decade or so ago and there would still be a few states that would have them on the books. On a more recent note, you'd still have sodomy laws on the books that would criminalize private behavior between consenting adults.

Sometimes, for basic decency, you have to have courts or the government step it up to thwart a tyranny of the majority.

[guido911]

I couldn't disagree more. When you're dealing with rights of the minority, doing things by popular vote is a terrible way of doing things. When you're talking about rights, sometimes the government or courts have to intervene to protect or enforce those rights.

I assume that you would have no problem with a Republican-controlled government in place when these civil rights decisions are being made.

[we vs us]

I assume that you would have no problem with a Republican-controlled government in place when these civil rights decisions are being made.

Are they going to be expanding the rights of minorities? Like protecting people regardless of race, color, creed, sexuality, religion (and protecting Christians from the imaginary War on Christmas doesn't count).  If those are the kinds of protections that a GOP government is going to fight for then I'm all for it. 

But then, there's not a real strong Republican track record of sticking up for minority rights, is there?

[guido911]

But then, there's not a real strong Republican track record of sticking up for minority rights, is there?

You mean, other than that whole fighting the civil war thing, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Conan71]

You mean, other than that whole civil war thing, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That doesn't count, those people would all be Democrats today. 

[guido911]

That doesn't count, those people would all be Democrats today. 

Also, Reagan nominated the first woman and the elder Bush nominated the second African-American to the Supreme Court. Both were confirmed. Obviously these two would be democrats by today's standards.

[we vs us]

You mean, other than that whole fighting the civil war thing, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You know, if the GOP of 45 years ago was representin' today, I might have a difficult time deciding how to vote.  

Of course, this is the GOP of today, and my votes couldn't be more clear cut.

[guido911]

You know, if the GOP of 45 years ago was representin' today, I might have a difficult time deciding how to vote.  

Of course, this is the GOP of today, and my votes couldn't be more clear cut.

Back-peddling fast enough? You wrote this mindlessness:

"But then, there's not a real strong Republican track record of sticking up for minority rights, is there?"

I smashed that idiocy and you are in full retreat mode. Weak.

[we vs us]

Back-peddling fast enough? You wrote this mindlessness:

"But then, there's not a real strong Republican track record of sticking up for minority rights, is there?"

I smashed that idiocy and you are in full retreat mode. Weak.

Uh, no.  You pretty much just made that up.

[Hoss]

Uh, no.  You pretty much just made that up.

Does that surprise you about Counselor Gweed?  'Legend in his own mind' comes to mind.

[Conan71]

Also, Reagan nominated the first woman and the elder Bush nominated the second African-American to the Supreme Court. Both were confirmed. Obviously these two would be democrats by today's standards.

That was just patronizing window dressing, remember?  Thomas is a misogynist anyhow so that doesn't count. 

"If Bush I had been President way back then, Thurgood Marshall would never have even got into law school." (loosely paraphrasing, can't remember the originator, but I'm guessing it's Je$$e Jack$on or Al $harpton).

[rwarn17588]

I assume that you would have no problem with a Republican-controlled government in place when these civil rights decisions are being made.

No, I wouldn't, if such action were supported by the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e. the Constitution) and/or court precedent. Those checks and balances need to be a part of the equation. That's good government.

For example, I would have been in full support of Eisenhower taking steps to allow those black kids in Little Rock to attend school.

The problem is that the Republican Party since the 1980s has embraced a platform that's not terribly supportive to minorities. The Democrats confronted the longtime racist wing of their party and essentially said it's not welcome anymore -- to their detriment. LBJ was terrible with his policy to the Vietnam War, but his stance to civil rights was beyond reproach, despite opposition from his own party.

[Conan71]

but his stance to civil rights was beyond reproach, despite opposition from his own party.

And many will tell you LBJ was a populist and went with what was politically expedient, if you've done much reading on his political career.

Specifically, what parts of the Republican platform have not been supportive of minorities, RW?

[rwarn17588]

And many will tell you LBJ was a populist and went with what was politically expedient, if you've done much reading on his political career.

Specifically, what parts of the Republican platform have not been supportive of minorities, RW?

I hardly think the Civil Rights Act was expedient. There was a lot of heavy lifting and arm-twisting to get that one through, and he knew there would be long-term political fallout for the Democrats. Expediency hardly comes to mind with that law.

As for the GOP not supporting minorities, they actively oppose gay marriage, for one thing. Also, they weren't happy about the repeal of sodomy laws, which targeted the homosexual community.

[cannon_fodder]

Since when does one race endorsing a policy (or party) make it right?  I've never considered which politician or which party would be best for my race.  Never come into the equation.  That fact that it does primarily for members of certain races (which is a euphemism for black people) seems to indicate the racial issues are primarily located therein.  Politicians focused on political gain for black people are OK:  Jackson, Sharpton, etc.  Religious leaders with an emphasis on being black are fine too.

But oddly (and rightfully) enough, similar groups concentrated on "the white man" are universally deemed idiots.  They are seen for what they are:  racists.  Advocating for special treatment for one race above another.  Racism/homophobia or other prejudices based on perceived differences will always exist, but luckily out culture has decided that this should be unacceptable and ostracized them to the fringes.   But for some reason you can still play the race card so long as your grandfather couldn't.  

Has anyone asked what Obama has done for white people?  Of course not, but that was a fair question to ask of GW.

Has anyone asked what XY or Z did to help the poor inner city white people?  Nope, if we focus on one race it will be "minorities" (generally a euphemism for black people again).  

Do any colleges get special treatment for being overly white?  Special job incentives?  Scholarships?  Grants?  Bidding incentives for government contracts?  Preference in application processes?    Institutionally it's still sanctioned as OK to grant privileges or advantages to certain people based on the color of their skin.  Not because a disproportional number of minorities live in poverty (in which case set the criteria as poverty) or because the system does not allow certain people to succeed (see: black president):  but because of a terrible history we can't move past.  

I've never understood the hangup with being a particular race or sexual orientation.  I understand how it effects ones personality and other factors - but "being white" or "acting straight" are not among things I consider.  Neither is lobbying for legislation to benefit my race above others or to be a leader of my race, or anything else.

A persons a person.  Rights are rights.  Black, white, gay, straight.  The hangup on these details when we are talking about legal rights seems absurd in this day and age.  

/tangent