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 3 of 86)
31. "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
32. Democracy suffered its biggest blow when the VP was told by a reporter that 2/3 of all Americans are against the war in iraq; and he gave the thoughtful response of.....SO!!! He, of course, would hate for something like" opinion polls" get in the way of what`s best for us fools.
If America`s leaders can be so dismissive of the will of the people, America can be a lot of things but a Democracy it isn`t.
So D`, if you want to let the people get rid of gay marriage in California then let`s get the heck out of Iraq.
If people speak and noone listens,what`s the point???
Hank Lipzer at 9:16AM on May 16th 2008
33. California is a great state for liberty!
Dinesh tries to make too many points. The result is confusion.
A lot of bigoted people got their smiles wiped off today. hahahaha
The concept of MARRIAGE is under the gun. I'd love to see a good definition of it, beyond the church's "license to have sex" or "proof of sire"
hahaha
abbot at 9:17AM on May 16th 2008
34. "He, of course, would hate for something like" opinion polls" get in the way of what`s best for us fools."
Reminds me of how Mitt Romney would embrace the spirit of democracy by changing his positions to reflect public opinion polls.
Mokele Mbembe at 9:24AM on May 16th 2008
35. Again, the will of the majority is denied so the immoral minority can be happy to live their life in a manner the majority hold as perverted.
When Americas baby bommers rejected God in the sixtys and advocated free love and sex they were then and now the cancer of a great nation.
Watchful at 9:31AM on May 16th 2008
36. Once again DD makes plain his ignorance and lack of charity (which is no longer a surprise, even in this particular professed "Christian") when it comes to issues of Government imposed "morality". No one has been able to mount a cogent argument, even in the courts, to suggest that allowing ANY two people to marry (in the legal, if not religious sense)is in any way harmful to any other citizen. It is consistently overlooked that our present marriage customs, whether or not it is carried out by an ordained minister of any recognized religious faith, must, by law, be sanctioned by the state in which the wedding is held. This sanctioning is NOT by the church, but by the government of the locality in question. Thus, any legal or financial benefits that may accrue to a "married couple" under our laws are granted by the state (not the church) and are, threrefore, subject to the federal and/or state constitution in question. Religious views regarding the morality or appropriateness of such unions have, at the most, bearing upon whether or not the church sees fit to approve or accept such a union. This "right" is protected (for both sides in this controversy) in the Constitution under separation of church and state doctrines. Religions clearly have the protected right to declare homosexuality as forbidden by their beliefs and certainly have the right to exclude membership in their institutions to homosexuals, but that right clearly does not extend to prohibiting any otherwise lawful pursuits for these fellow citizens. The California courts have in no way limited the rights of Religions or individuals to practice their particular brand of customary "union"; at the same time, they have been unable to find any constituionally supported reason to restrict homosexuals from access to the same rights and privileges.
Harvey at 9:35AM on May 16th 2008
37. Again, the will of the majority is denied so the immoral minority can be happy to live their life in a manner the majority hold as perverted.
When Americas baby bommers rejected God in the sixtys and advocated free love and sex they were then and now the cancer of a great nation.
Watchful at 9:31AM on May 16th 2008
I should have added Watchful to my introductory statement above about DD, but his post appeared while I was posting #36.
Harvey at 9:45AM on May 16th 2008
38. As a Hetero Male, I don't want to see men playing cuddle bunnies on the curb.
That aside, I do think that civil unions should be allowed. Not religious Marriage if the Holy text forbids it.
The reason why I think civil unions should be allowed are...
1. It promotes monogamy.
2. Life partners should be able to sit with their significant others in the emergency room, and enjoy other similar benefits that married people enjoy.
Gay people are that way for different reasons.
Trans genders have female wired brains in male bodies and vice versa. I have known gay men that had no male role models but had very beautiful Moms as role models. Some come from abused childhoods. Some got tired of dating losers.
There are more reasons than that, but I don't feel like writing a book right now. LOL
We as a society tend to lump things into one nice neat pile.
The problem is that life is far to complex.
Not all dinosaurs were big slow and stupid.
Not all Republicans are evil.
Not all Democrats sleep with interns.
Look at the world with open mindedness and you will be truely amazed at how complex it is.
Scott Schenck at 9:48AM on May 16th 2008
39. If you compare/contrast the function and anatomy of male and female parts...For example,the penis and the clitoris are both erectile tissues...the scrotum on the male is like the labia on the woman, their functions correspond to each other...infact, everyone starts out as female until a certain point in development...both the male testes and the ovaries develop further up inside the abdomen and have to drop into place...we are wonderfully made really...our brains communicate, hormones are released...it is really a marvelous thing in how very complex we are...It is obvious how our bodies are made to function...don't you dare argue with me...I know bettah
Bridget at 9:55AM on May 16th 2008
40. I think one of the biggest things that bothers us (hetreros) about gay marriage besides re-writting holy text to make it o.k. is how to raise the children.
Often a child is gay by genetics.
Some though are gay by environment.
I think gay couples should raise their children with the concept that hetero is the way to go, but don't hate yourself if you aren't.
The secret is to be true to yourself and be a good person.
There are a lot of evil heteros and a lot of good gays.
Preference alone doesn't dictate a persons value in society.
One last thing...
I have had gay men try to initiate me into their lifestyle. 3 different times in my life.
QUIT!
If you want us to accept you and allow you to be yourselves, you have to do the same for us.
Trying to mess with someones head just to get your jollies is WRONG!!!
Scott at 10:02AM on May 16th 2008
41. It is the mind that is corrupt, not the body
Bridget at 10:07AM on May 16th 2008
42. Harvey and Scott,
You both make some very valid points. Civil Marriage in this country carries some specific rights such as medical proxy, survivorship,some tax advantages, and a mechanism for disolving the relationship (divorce). To deny these rights to any based soley an gender is wrong.
I think the Christian Right is more concerned about their loss of political control than any real affect that gay marriage will have on their personal lives.
jshipoffools at 10:11AM on May 16th 2008
43. Don’t play word games little man.
The California high court did not make gay marriage a right they ruled that a ban on gay marriages is unconstitutional implying that the right for gays to marriage is already implied in the constitution or at the very least not prohibited by same.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The Declaration of independence
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Supreme Court Justice Warren 1967 on the aptly named Loving v Virginia an anti miscegenation
case.
Did you even read California’s constitution as you imply? Because I don’t think you did. Read the California constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it and point out where you see even a hint against gay marriage.
Below is the only mention of Marriage in California’s Constitution
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 21. Property owned before marriage or acquired during marriage
by gift, will, or inheritance is separate property.
You may however find this next little item of interest especially since it is the first item in California’s constitution.
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
The above two sections are from the 1972 version you my dear little mental defective, might find this little nugget from the 1849 version interesting.
Sec. 12. No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect.
Perhaps if you had spent the same five minutes I just did in doing a little research you would not have embarrassed yourself by writing
NOR IS IT A RIGHT THAT CAN BE CLEARLY DERIVED FROM OTHER ENUMERATED RIGHTS.
What it all boils down to is that you and assholes like you want to actually legalize bigotry.
And please lets put a stop to this moronic and dishonest railing against the idea of activist judges as you asswipes don’t seem to mind it when it’s a conservative judge hands down activist rulings of the conservative flavor.
But what am I asking? You could no more cease to be dishonest or moronic than you could cease being an effete dilettante milquetoast….
Ohhhh, I think I understand your position on gay marriage now.
Ladies and gentlemen, another self hating queer rears his ugly head to rant against his own self interest.
rabidmccain at 10:13AM on May 16th 2008
44. The Bible says that our bodies are "the temple of the Holy Spirit"...if I use my body to commit sin, then I am defiling the temple...and I am not talking about just the homosexual lifestyle here...I am talking about males and females fornicating (committing premarital sexual relations)...I am talking about prostitution, I am talking about adultery...Hebrews says it is like a sharp two-edged sword...it hurts to confront ourselves with our sins, and be brave enough to change it...but we won't have peace unless we do!
Bridget at 10:20AM on May 16th 2008
45. Hank, the govt. is NOT for the people anymore, it is for themselves and their own pockets...do you think they are being affected by the economy right now?
Bridget at 10:29AM on May 16th 2008