Originally posted by ionia23
Whether or not it should or should not have been proposed isn't the problem. Actually, the fact that it was proposed in the first place isn't a problem either.
And therein lies the great dilemna in 'free speech'. You can say, think, and propose pretty much anything you want to. Whether it is agreed with, resisted, argued, acted upon, totally different matter.
Someone could try to take to the floor a constitutional amendment overturning the right of blacks to vote if they wanted to. Wouldn't get very far, but they could certainly try.
Think of it as a balance: one group can propose a federal law allowing gay marriage. by that same token, another group can propose making the practice of homosexuality a federal, capital offense. Sure, dealing with the Bill O'Reillys and Pat Buchannans of the world is a royal pain in the ass, but if the law covers them then you have nothing to worry about.
That is...until they become the majority.
Still missing the point. Of course freedom of speech allows them to propose whatever laws they want. But did they run for election with this in their manifesto? I think not.
If you run for election claiming you're going to do something like this then you can propose it all you like. But the fact remains that many of the people who voted for them wouldn't have done so had they known that this was coming.
That's why they shouldn't be allowed to get away with backing this crap. They should be hounded out of office by public opinion in the same way as if they had proposed a return to slavery. That's why it's a big issue. Nothing to do with whether it passes or not. The very fact that they proposed it should end their careers. If we simply sweep it under the carpet cause it won't pass then we forget the fact that these idiots tried to pass a law that even the majority of republicans on this board hate.
