It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community. If people don't have that power, then they are living under an autocracy.
True, this majority rule is not unlimited. It is limited by what the government has the power to do. Consequently the majority cannot, in general, vote to seize the homes and accumulated savings of rich people. Leaving aside exceptional cases, government cannot mandate how parents how should raise their children. These kinds of power lie outside the scope of government in a free society.
Majority rule is also circumscribed by individual rights. But these are the rights clearly specified in the Constitution. A majority of citizens cannot prevent an individual from voting because voting is a basic right, as is the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and so on. The state is constitutionally prohibited from undermining these enumerated rights.
Now the high court of California has made gay marriage into a right that is immune from restriction by the majority of citizens in the state. We already know what California citizens think about gay marriage: they oppose it. A referendum outlawing gay marriage was passed with the support of the state's voters.
How, then, can a court invalidate the referendum and over-rule the will of the people? Basically through a kind of legal fraud. The court has to pretend that there is a right to gay marriage even though it is nowhere evident in the state constitution. Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it--you won't see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.
Here we see liberal jurisprudence in its arrogant willingness to subvert the will of the people in order to achieve its ideological agenda. This has nothing to do with whether you think gays should be allowed to marry. If you think they should, go ahead and vote for candidates who support gay marriage. But you should still oppose the manufacture of bogus rights in order to reach a result that democracy would not by itself allow.
Attempting to insulate themselves from the political fallout, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both said they oppose gay marriage. The real question, however, is what they would do to express this opposition. What would a President Obama do, for instance, to protect traditional marriage? Here the answer appears to be: nothing!
In the past Democrats have always appreciated courts doing their dirty work when it comes to issues like abortion, pornography, prostitution and gay rights. This way Democrats can advance their permissive agenda without having to take political responsibility for voting against the values of a majority of voters.
I know that there are gays who desperately want gay marriage, and in a way I'm happy for them. But at the same time I'm sad for constitutional democracy, which suffered a grievous blow at the hands of the California high court.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 86)
1. I have heard it said activist courts are impatient with democracy - this has been proven true today
Jerry at 1:39AM on May 16th 2008
2. This oughta be good! True to form, DD has started the fires of controversy. Let the crazyiness begin!!!
Robert at 1:42AM on May 16th 2008
3. But, I'm just gonna be a by-stander for this one, I promise. Too much to process from yesterday's fiasco. LOL
Robert at 1:45AM on May 16th 2008
4. We are, however, going to have a lively discussion of DD's inflammatory techniques in class next week. Thanks, DD, you rock!
Robert at 1:51AM on May 16th 2008
5. First of all, it appeared on the main page that no comments were allowed. You have to be clever and link to it thru one of the sidebars to see and make comments. I guess that's why there's only 5 or so on such a volatile topic.
Second of all, thank God we don't really live in a democracy. We live in a republic, and the rights of minorities are protected against the will of the majority.
Therefore, yes, gay marriage is allowed, and should be allowed, and should be protected. Sure, it isn't in the constitution, but neither is it prohibited.
And besides, what's your problem with it anyway, DD? Is it going to bring about the end of the world? Oh, no! Some gays are getting married! Run and hide! (That was sarcasm, folks!)
David at 2:04AM on May 16th 2008
6. It is simply false that it is the essence of democracy to be ruled under the moral laws you agree with. What if we all agree that murder should be legal?
No. The essence of democracy is equal rights for all individuals. So that means that even if I think that what some individual(s) does is wrong, as long as it does not hurt my rights, I should not be allowed to try and stop it.
What makes a right not subject to the majority rule? If the behavior in question fails to harm - directly or indirectly (I'm thinking of drug usage here) - other people by infringing on their rights, then that right is not subject to majority rule. Period. I fail to see how gay marriage affects D'Souza.
It would be bogus to say that a right must be in the constitution for it to be a right. The constitution is not perfect. There was a time when neither the right for blacks to vote was in the constitution, nor were people willing to vote on a referendum to let blacks vote. However, blacks still should have the right to vote, presumably even in 1776. Would D’Souza deny a black person the right to vote if he lived in 1776 just because it wasn’t in the constitution and also no one was willing to vote for blacks to have that right? Well, there was a time when those two things were true.
A right is something you discover. It is a fact about humanity. This is the basis of Americanism. When it comes to rights, we do not vote for them. We look for them. We use reason and logic to see whether or not people should have that right, and then we put it into the constitution to remind ourselves that even if we do not want to grant that right (even if 90% of us don’t), we nonetheless must grant it. Even if the government does not grant that right to the people, those people still have that right - it is just not being given to them.
D’Souza has the right to be disgusted by gay people and gay people getting married. But so long as those gays who get married don’t infringe on his rights by getting married, his vote to end their right to get married is simply an angry and intolerant voice that can be ignored by the law.
Lamar Hunt at 2:14AM on May 16th 2008
7.
Another name for it is Mob Rules, Dinesh. Do we support Mob Rule?
mac at 3:34AM on May 16th 2008
8. Today - See how Darwinism historically gained its public acceptance by archaeological HOAXES and deception.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
PROFESSOR X at 6:10AM on May 16th 2008
9. THE LINK BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY & CHILD MOLESTATION
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php
TRON at 6:10AM on May 16th 2008
10. DON'T READ ROMANS 1:16-32
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Romans+1%3A16-32§ion=0&version=nkj&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ro&NavGo=1&NavCurrentChapter=1
Truth is heavy - some cannot handle it.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
PROMETHEUS at 6:11AM on May 16th 2008
11. Wrong again Dinesh D'Souza.
I am not "gay", but after reading some of the madness posted here, let's consider some balance outside of clinging to homophobia, holier-than-thou bible thumping, and a lack of respect for the Constitution, which is designed to protect minorities of all types, including religious minorities, from persecution from a majority. Especially from the likes of Dinesh D'Souza, who proudly boasted "bashing week" a few weeks ago, although the bible states several times that pride is an abomination.
According to FBI statistics, over 90% of child molestations are committed by heterosexual adults, and many of those are self-proclaimed Christians. The Catholic Church has been successfully sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for the acts of child molestation committed by their Priests.
Many scientific associations have reach majority consensus that sexual orientation is not a "choice", including the American Psychological Association. After all, who would "chose" to be in a minority orientation knowing that they will be killed, beaten or met with the type of verbal "holier than thou" hypocrisy and hatred we see in this forum.
1.) Most "Christians" I've met can't even recite half of the Ten Commandments, none of which mentions homosexuality, but one of which states that we should "NOT work on the Sabbath". If we're going to deny two consenting adults the equal right to marry based on an ancient book of fairy tales, then we may as well deny rights for the millions of people who "WORK on the Sabbath" - and the ones who employee them by going to their places of business on the Sabbath - resteraunts, theaters, malls, etc.
2.) The bible mentions "gluttony" far more as an "abomination" than it does homosexuality. How many gluttonous Christians do we know? I know plenty, including Jerry Falwell, who's gluttony led to his heart attack, to name just one of many "Christians" who died of obesity. Isn't the body God's temple to these "Christians"?
3.) God, who allegedly is the "all-knowing all-creator", by definition created different sexual orientations, as they are found in millions of people in all cultures throughout history. There are even intersexed people found in all cultures - people BORN with BOTH male and female organs - who do the lying Christians suggest THEY have the right marry?
4.) Marriage is not just for "pro-creation". There are millions of Christian couples who either cannot or will not have children in an already growing and overpopulated world with food and clean water shortages amounting to 1.5 million deaths of children each year. There are millions of more "Christians" known as nuns and priests who will also not have children.
5.) Alexander The Great was bisexual, but mostly gay, and many famous Army Generals consider him to be the greatest General of all times. The Greek culture prospered for centuries until the Christianity was adopted by the Romans and then we saw the ushering in of the dark ages, the inquisition, witch huntings, and anyone not Christian, gay or biologically different in any way were burned at the stake or tortured and killed "in the name of god".
6.) In a democracy that respects equality, the national and State Constitutions are designed to protect minorities such as NONheterosexuals from the ignorance and emotional prejudices of the majority. When the majority tries to ram their religious beliefs down the throats of the world to support their pet prejudices, the Supreme Court has to listen to rational debate. The Supreme Court those not only protects minority religions, but minority sexual orientations.
7.) The California Supreme Court heard hours of rational argument and evidence. They listened to both sides, both pro-gay marriage and anti gay marriage. The anti gay-marriage people were asked over and over to give a compelling argument that would show that gay marriage somehow injures anyone or injures marriage as we know it. They could not come up with a compelling argument, and many of them were given the opportunity to do so. All we heard was their prejudices and their unfounded homophobia.
8.) Thomas Jefferson, the principle advocate behind the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, stated: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." Gay marriage between two consenting adults was not proven to be any more harmful or injurious to any other person than heterosexual marriage.
9.) *One* of the causes of divorce is cheating, often listed as irreconcilable difference, according to a divorce attorney I know, "to save the couple from public embarrassment". With nearly a 50% divorce rate among "Christians" surely "faith" in their invisible god is not *always* stronger than the immediate need for gratification and/or health considerations.
10.) The cheating and divorces continue decade after decade, no matter how many prayers have been uttered by preachers and priests, family and friends, to keep the blessed couples together.
Studies done by Christian organizations found that the divorce rate is actually higher among Christian Fundamentalist than it is among atheist, and divorce rates are higher in the MidSouth, where NONheterosexuals are relatively closeted than divorce rates in larger where NONheterosexuality is more accepted. I'm not drawing a correlation here, but it does support the fact that HONheterosexual marriage would certainly not harm heterosexual marriage.
11.) Self-proclaimed "Christians" such as Bill O'Reilly used misleading and irrational fear-mongering by stating gay marriage will lead to polygamy and people marrying animals." It hasn't in five countries where it's legal, nor in Massachusetts. Imagine that, using feat-bating instead of facts to limit freedom and equality - Bill O'Reilly's hypocrisy is too often the rule rather than the exception when it comes to gay bashing on religious grounds. O'Reilly was also among those Christians "baring false witness" that if we allow South Vietnam to fall to the communist, the rest of Asia would also. One act does not necessarily have to follow another, unrelated act, and in fact, often does not.
Bill O'Reilly is in no position to claim that law-abiding NONheterosexuals have a right to be themselves equal on a par with heterosexuals. But O'Reilly is no typical heterosexual, for his hypocritical fantasies went too far and devolved into sexual harassment. For reference, search for "Andrea Mackris".
O'Reilly, while MARRIED, called Andrea Mackris several times making lewd and perverted phone calls. She sued. He stated on the air that he "would fight it to the end". A while later, he was told by Mackris' attorney that they had tape of his sexual phone calls.
"Christian" O'Reilly then announced on the air that night that he has settled out of court and "will never talk about it again." Hardly a "fight to the end" and he actually settled for $10 million, which is hardly the act of an innocent man. Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly has a long history of actually believing his misguided notions about our freedoms and what two consenting adults do in bed.
O'Reilly once stated that he would never let his son be around a gay parade because he wouldn't want him to see transsexuals. That's a strange way to teach tolerance of diversity and the realities of the world - that we're all different in one way or another, and often in many ways.
That wisdom and tolerance continues to be lost on Bill O'Reilly, who really expects NONheterosexuals to not "act" or "behave as themselves. This includes a significant percentage of the world's population as they are found in every country and every culture, including some of the oldest cultures on earth. While O'Reilly has a right to be closed minded and "disgusted" by two people of the same gender who love each other, nobody told him to think about what two girls do beyond holding each other for a picture.
I would be disgusted by the thought of Bill O'Reilly having sex with anyone, but again, I don't have to think about it. Like many adults, I'm emotionally mature enough to control my thoughts and feelings. When O'Reilly gets angry, (which is often) he tends to blame his victims. Bill has even proudly boasted, that his father, a cop, freely used his baton when he got angry.
No wonder. O'Reilly has written a non-fiction book about a smeared journalist who exacts murderous revenge - it seems to be a fantasy of his. Same applies to any couple we may think about, two obese people, two grandparents, etc., I think of them as fellow human beings first...and second.....and third, I don't think about what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom.
That's a simple lesson of decency and democracy that simply doesn't occur to Bill O'Reilly and his ilk, John Gibson and thousands of others who subscribe to homophobic gay-bashing. Many of them "enjoy" watching Fox "news" and proudly boast that they are "conservative" all the while lying that Fox "news" is not "right wing". Fox so-called "news" where journalistic integrity comes in a far second place to propaganda. Fox "news" - unfair, imbalanced and unashamed.
The good news is that most people can learn and grow, and change their subscriptions when they finally realize that they've been reading the wrong magazines much of their lives.
Chris Aable at 6:42AM on May 16th 2008
12. Notice Dinesh D'Souza cowards from listing any compelling, rational reasons for not allowing millions of consenting adults to Marry in and one-on-one relationship?
"It thoroughly amuses me when people complain about how our civilization is going to "die out any day now" because "we allow gay people to exist". Homosexuality has existed for as long as the human race has existed. Yet, somehow, magically we have 6,000,000,000+ (nearly 7 billion)humans on the planet currently (that's not a small number, people).
"America is full of idiots who don't even know what makes the "marriage" relationship distinct from all other human relationships. The procreation of the citizenry is what makes "marriage" unique among all human relationships." (from post #3)
So what you're saying is people who choose not to procreate, or cannot procreate, shouldn't be allowed to be married then, because it's not resulting in children?
Oh, and you morons that think ancient civilizations that fell were due to homosexuality need to read a real history book sometime. Your pastor doesn't know what he is talking about, sorry.
If you need a great example of a more recent civilization that fell with homosexuality having >ZERO< to do with it, look at the continent we currently populate. Christians came over here, and gave diseases to native Americans, and the ones that didn't die were enslaved and butchered, all in the name of the "loving God" that so many of you worship, and of course, a big side order of "manifest destiny".
Most of the civilizations throughout history that died out were because a stronger neighboring barbarian tribe wiped them out, not because of homosexual relationships.
Oh, and before you idiots spout out about the mythical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, you need to reread your bibles (without your bigot pastors there to make sure you ONLY understand it from his perspective) and see the actual reason that those fairytale cities were supposedly destroyed. It had everything to do with people in general treating everyone badly.
Two thumbs up to the justices overturning discriminatory laws, just like they did with segregation and interracial marriage laws.
As someone wrote into my local paper about a few days ago concerning marriage laws in my state: "Democracy needs to be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner." Social equality ultimately must prevail if we are to survive as a nation.
I suggest you read up a bit about The Netherlands region as well if you think a society accepting of homosexuality will go down in flames. They are a perfect modern example of how people can peacefully coexist, and be happy, even with those "evil gays" actually having rights."
zatheus at 9:43PM on May 15th 2008
Friendster214 at 7:00AM on May 16th 2008
13. The above post was worth re-posting here, and is from the Ada Calhoun AOL blog,
"Gay Marriage Legal in California!"
She was first to post on it, but I guess Dinesh D'Souza has to jump in now to compete for attention by using his favorite tool for his tools: Hateful controversy.
"#3" in my above post refers to Calhoun's blog, not D'Souza's.
Friendster214 at 7:05AM on May 16th 2008
14. Perhaps the pursuit of happiness is a basic right.
a born atheist at 7:30AM on May 16th 2008
15. Jesus said, "love your neighbor as yourself".
Jesus said, "Judge not lest ye be judged".
Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Have you ever noticed that d'souza's articles NEVER mirror any of the above quotes?
And I do have this to say about Sodom and Gomorrah: If the cities were homosexual, why did Lot offer up his daughters to be sexually abused if the men were gay? Also, note that no one ever thinks there is anything wrong with Lot being willing to allow his own daughters to be raped.
Judy at 7:53AM on May 16th 2008