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 2 of 86)
16. 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
17. Dinesh D'Souzah is gay!!!
America's Most Gangsta at 7:53AM on May 16th 2008
18. You don't see bulls screwing bulls, you don't see male dogs screwing dogs, you don't see bitch rabbits, dogs, and cats screwing each other, therefore it remains to be seen MALES SCREW FEMALES AND FEMALES SCREW MALES that is Adam and Eve you homo's need to go elsewhere
Marsha at 8:26AM on May 16th 2008
19. There is no constitutional "right" to marriage period. Homosexual or heterosexual. We should just abolish government marriage licenses in favor of domestic partnerships for all. Of course, I would agree with Dinesh in that the people should vote for that, and the courts shouldn't have the say.
Tony Messinger at 8:37AM on May 16th 2008
20. "It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community"
Yet more spurious nonsense from D'Souza whose speciality is making assertions that are nothing but opinion and then proceeding as if they were established fact. The essence of democracy is nothing more than a government chosen by the people. Personal morality should never be dictated by governments, democratic or otherwise. Don't you just love the flagrant hypocrisy of D'Souza and his kind who want to dictate every aspect of people's lives and call this 'democracy'
Later he whines that the Democratic candidates have done nothing to protect 'traditional marriage' How does gays getting married threaten that? Shouldn't we celebrate the fact that gay men and women want to commit to each other and cement that commitment with the marriage ceremony?
tim at 8:49AM on May 16th 2008
21.
#18, Marsha:
Um, if you haven't seen two male dogs getting it on then you haven't spent much time around dogs.
Your argument = epic fail.
Tony Messinger at 8:40AM on May 16th 2008
22. Research shows that we don't quite know why people are sexually attracted to people. (Other than biological triggers) But the psychology of sex is very complex. However, no one is "born gay." It is understandable that the "GLBT community" wishes to push such things because it takes the argument out of the mouths of those who would demean them. However, it is a false statement. By that same token of course, no one is "born straight." One day, I hope that we move past these confusing and devisive terms.
That notwithstanding, I find it refreshing to know that the rights of a minority of people are not being abridged by others who wish to impose their religious views on others. As a Christian, (and I am one, though I do not believe in restricting same sex marriage) it is permisable for one to hold certain views about any one subject, but whether they are prudent to become law is entirely another.
Ryuuku at 8:43AM on May 16th 2008
23. "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."
Agreed. I would not want to live in a land where if you slap your kid the government can take them away.
Anyway, welcome to America, Dinesh. We were never a true democracy, but a republic. We are not in control, but we can choose who is. To have more influence than being a mere voter you have to actually get involved in politics, which is also our right.
"I know that there are gays who desperately want gay marriage, and in a way I'm happy for them."
This is out of character. What are you covering? In what "way" are you "happy for them"?
Mokele Mbembe at 8:44AM on May 16th 2008
24. "advance their permissive agenda without having to take political responsibility for voting against the values of a majority of voters."
I am certain that, were he alive over 150 years ago, Dinesh would be making the exact same argument when discussing a court ruling against slavery as well.
brandon at 8:46AM on May 16th 2008
25. "Today - See how Darwinism historically gained its public acceptance by archaeological HOAXES and deception"
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
Anyone clicking on this link will indeed learn something. They will learn just how weak and childish the arguments of the Creationist are. Evolution is a fact accepted by virtually every serious scientist. The reluctance of some religous people to accept it has nothing to do with science. They refuse to accept evolution because they perceive it as a threat to their authority. In that regard the debate (if you can even call it that) between Creationists and Science is not even about relgion but politics.
tim at 8:55AM on May 16th 2008
26.
Brandon:
150 years ago the courts weren't ruling against slavery, they were ruling in favor of it. Look up Dred Scott and Roger Taney.
Tony Messinger at 8:52AM on May 16th 2008
27. tim,
Are you confusing democracy with republic?
Mokele Mbembe at 8:55AM on May 16th 2008
28. "150 years ago the courts weren't ruling against slavery, they were ruling in favor of it. Look up Dred Scott and Roger Taney.
Tony Messinger at 8:52AM on May 16th 2008"
I know that, Tony. I meant in favor of slavery. Mistyped. No coffee...the point is still valid.
brandon at 8:59AM on May 16th 2008
29. "I have heard it said activist courts are impatient with democracy - this has been proven true today"
By 'activist courts' you mean any ruling, in any court that does not fit in with the right wing agenda which, in this instance, is all about dictating to people how they should lead their lives. Which is the very antithesis of genuine democracy.
tim at 9:05AM on May 16th 2008
30. "You don't see bulls screwing bulls, you don't see male dogs screwing dogs, you don't see bitch rabbits, dogs, and cats screwing each other, therefore it remains to be seen MALES SCREW FEMALES AND FEMALES SCREW MALES that is Adam and Eve you homo's need to go elsewhere"
You really thought hard about that post didn't you? Are you suggesting we should let animal behaviour inform our own sexual mores? If that is the case then I take you'd be happy if some random guy started sniffing your behind like dogs do. Actually, don't answer that question, I'm afraid of what the answer might be!
tim at 9:08AM on May 16th 2008