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 4 of 86)
46. 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
47. Dimwit is so typical of all the 'holier than thou' bible punchers. If everyone thought as he does we would still have slavery and stoning of criminals. At least make some attempt to get into the 19th century dimwit.
Geoff Barker at 10:43AM on May 16th 2008
48.
"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."
Well, that's quite a potent stand to take. Them dare fighiting words. Any actions taken by the majority that curtails the inalienable non-harming rights of other people are null and void.
"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."
However, the government does seize money from the people in the form of taxes. They do sieze homes from people. They do mandate how people should raise their children, examples include the recent horrific case of mass child abduction by the government in Texas.
"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."
Ah yes, indiviudal rights. They seem to be shrunk every day by the paranoid.
Oh, one of those rights spelled out in the constitution of the USA is the right that all men are created equal. Hmmmm... that one is quite interesting.
"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."
Well the court seems to have stuck a forwarding blow for individual rights and told the state to back off out of the bedrooms of human beings. It's quite an elightened decision actually.
Californians seem to actually want this, as the legislature passed it and the goveninator killed it as he killed a number of human beings convicted of horrific crimes.
The delusional notion that one man, the govinator, can decide the fate of many's rights is absurd.
"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."
Oh yeah the referendum that wanted to take away the inalienable rights of men from being equal and codify the prejuidce in law. Wow, interesting that the majority would think that they have the right to do that isn't it.
"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."
Actually it seems that the justices were correcting an injustice brought by narrow minded people like Dinesh and others seeking to subvert people's rights to live their lives their way without harming others.
No bogus rights were manufactured since it was a correction of an injustice.
"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!"
Why would people want to curtail the inalienable rights of other human beings when no harm comes to anyone else?
"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."
Well that seems to be quite loaded with presuppositions that I don't know where to being. Let's just say poop to all of that shall we. Human beings seek to ensure that daemons such as you and your friends Dinesh don't inping their rights with your unsupportable anchient dark age religiously frozen in time morals and eithcs.
"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."
Well that's great that you are happy for them, maybe there is hope for you as an advocate of equal rights and upholding your own consitution.
You're sad that equal rights were finally recognized as requiring extension to a visible - yet often hidden - minority of people in your country? Very strange that you'd advocate taking peoples inalienable rights away from them. Very strange indeed sir Dinesh D'Souza the taker of equality from people.
There is no possible way that gay mariage will harm anyone. Other western countries such as Canada, your neighbor to the north, have had the recognition that they needed to provide equal rights to their human beings a while ago and the sky hasn't fallen down there at all.
No rights of the narrow minded equality bashing religous were inpinged at all. Chuches that don't want to provide mariage to people they don't want to don't have to. Freedom by the religous to discrimiate against a visible minorty was perserved so what are you whining about?
Two people being married can't hurt you no matter what their sexes are.
Besides there are statisitcs that show that the more religous states in the USA have a higher rate of divorse amounst their populations. Very strange that the pious want to encourage marriage yet they have a prediliction for divorce. An interesting hypocracy, but then for the bible thumping morally rightous hypogracy is a common trait.
Human Rights are not just want you want them to be Dinesh. There are deep cultural traditions of human beings - other than yours - that have been around for many thousands of years that have stood the test of time. Respect for other human beings is one such moral value that you might have to learn anew now that your gay breathern and sisters have finally been given recognition of what they have always had - the right to marry each other as they commit.
One of those rights strange enough that has been around for many thousands of years is the right to marry a person of the same sex. The prohibition that is in your brain and frozen moral tradition came about when the powerful decided to tighten their control on the people as they did with many other areas of lives. It's good to have a deep thawing out of at least one right that was taken away from human beings by those who think that they have a right to dominate others with their moral majorities.
Well that's a good start to the rebuttal to your silly and awkward position where you find yourself cornered by the very constitution that you claim to uphold. Now, let's see what other inalienable rights are out there.
Peter at 10:44AM on May 16th 2008
49. Why is marriage a "special" right for the male-female couple? The entire concept of forming a life-long partnership of sexual partners is based on the long-range project of children/family.
There would never have been any such thing as "marriage" if sexual activity didn't produce children who have the right to be nurtured and educated into adulthood by the partners that created them. To put it another way, a life long contractual partnership of two people makes no sense without some life-long project that has legal rights and ramifications. Gays don't have any life-long children to raise, and thus "gay marriage" makes no sense--it's a misnomer.
preteristvision at 10:46AM on May 16th 2008
50. I was ging to post at length, but Chjris Aable did such a superlative job of chopping DD into little tiny pieces that I can save my time and fingers.
GREAT post, Chris.
Marty Adams at 10:50AM on May 16th 2008
51. By Dinesh's definition, Jim Crow laws would still be alive and well in the South.
Paul at 10:59AM on May 16th 2008
52. preteristvision,
Who says married couples are obligated to procreate? Not everyone who gets married plans to sire their little mini-me's into the world.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:58AM on May 16th 2008
53. preteristvision,
"To put it another way, a life long contractual partnership of two people makes no sense without some life-long project that has legal rights and ramifications."
How does reducing the entire concept of marriage into a cold business contract serve the sanctity of it anyway?
Mokele Mbembe at 11:03AM on May 16th 2008
54. Traditional marriage? Do you even know what that means? Traditionally marriage was for property acquisitions, a legal contract to bind ownership of property, slaves etc amongst tribes and kingdoms. It was used to change matriarchal inheritance from mother through daughter to fathers and sons since marriage can now guarantee paternity between man and son.
Traditionally marriage rarely had anything to do with love until recent times. The institution of marriage is an ever evolving thing.
The overturn on California's ban on gay marriage is legal because the rights of an individual to purse happiness and join a partnership that are guaranteed by the first amendment. Don't remember freedom from religion? Since those who oppose gay marriage do so for RELIGIOUS reasons it infringes on the person's individual rights. Majority rule doesn't count on this one, Sorry.
Don't forget to separate religion from government!!!!!! Our founding fathers sought this since they knew religion was dangerous for the establishment of a new country!
Don't forget majority rule sometimes is not a good thing. It was majority rule that kept children under the age of 12 working in factories during the 1900's. These Early Americans didn't think children were being hurt in the process. If it wasn't for the depression that had adults seeking for jobs, children's rights would have been infringed to majority rule.
Majority rule did not over turn slavery.
Majority rule did not support women's rights. The first Amendment did.
Some times what is right has to be forced down Americans throats in order for them to eventually accept what is right from wrong in a reality sense, not a religious one.
goddess1prevail at 11:05AM on May 16th 2008
55. Hey Peter
While I totally agree with your sentiment you should get yourself a dictionary to make your comments easier to read
Geoff Barker at 11:25AM on May 16th 2008
56. It is quite apparent that to dimwit 'democracy' should be limited to people he approves of. Straight christians
Geoff Barker at 11:26AM on May 16th 2008
57. Like Marty, I have read many of my opinions already, from Lamar Hunt, Friendster214, RJP3, et al. I really cannot improve on these posts.
Just a side note to RYVUKU, the Christian who did not oppose gay marriage: there is a woman poster from yesterday who says that you are not a real Christian if you don't condemn homosexuality. She happens to be a catholic, and, according to her, there is no "give" in this for christians.
Of course, to me, your post represents the real mission of your jesus, that of love and openness.
Linda at 11:29AM on May 16th 2008
58. Those of us who are neither Christian (in the best sense of that word) nor "christian" (in the worst sense of that narrowminded, "holier than thou" atitude), may be able to see that bloggers of the latter type relate all of this current discussion to their perception of "perversion" or going against "the will of God". Unlike the true Christians, who not only understand that the Bible is a set of guidelines whose teachings can help us to live a life of kindness, forgiveness, understanding and sincere efforts to strive for something better than the innate self interest to which most humans tend, these "christians" violate most of what seems to have been Christ's real message in favor of insisting that everyone MUST live as they think proper OR ELSE!
As a result, one can see that this discussion, which began in regard to the California court's recognition that marriage under the laws of the state or federal constitutiions between ANY two citizens is both a right and a privilege that should not be denied to anyone unless it can be shown to be harmful to others, has degenerated into people's blind and unreasoning fear of anyone who differs from "us". Without name-calling or ad hominem vitriol, I cannot see how any of these issues harm "traditional marriage", which is a religious contract, or anyone who has previously entered into such acontract.
Harvey at 11:34AM on May 16th 2008
59. Misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges "overriding" the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their "marriage" laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed "it is up to the state Supreme Court" to decide the issue.
RJP3 at 11:37AM on May 16th 2008
60. Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges "overriding" the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their "marriage" laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed "it is up to the state Supreme Court" to decide the issue.
RJP3 at 11:36AM on May 16th 2008