Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
One of the few things that Chretien did that I liked. When this was still being discussed here, even I was of the mindset, 'let's just put it to a referendum.' I would vote for extending all rights including the title marriage, but if the majority feels that isn't correct who am I to say?
But I watched the debate about it and Chretien simply said that a referendum wouldn't do because, (paraphrased) 'you can't leave the freedoms of a minority up to the will of a majority.' And of course that is correct. We don't have the right to decide on anyone else freedoms, especially if we ourselves already enjoy them.
One of the few intelligent things the guys said...  |
Except and without stepping into the Gay Marriage debate, which I don't care about, and doesn't impact me in any way, but Chretien's statement is anti-democratic at best. It opens the way for the protection of a lot of things that might be unsavory. At some point in a democracy, the rights of the majority have to be respected, and you can't just steam roller over the majority on pet causes.
If you open things up to a referendum then you have to live up to those results.
An example would have been the Quebec referendum, under Chretien's statement, the vote wouldn't have mattered at all if the minority (those who voted to seperate wanted to ignore the will of the majority)