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 6 of 86)
76. Aren't all orgasms sacred?? I know Godless Heathen Brian would say so........
Linda at 12:32PM on May 16th 2008
----------------------------------
You summoned me? I heard the magic o-word.
Hearkening and obedience, mistress.
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:13PM on May 16th 2008
77. When reading this inflammatory and cognitively meandering blog entry it is easy to lose sight of the role of the courts in a democracy . A major reason for the existence of the courts is to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. History is replete with examples of erroneous and/or disastrous majority opinions and policies. The courts must remain vigilant to ensure that government for and by the people never devolves into the rule of the mob.
Steve at 1:15PM on May 16th 2008
78. this is why i'm a BIG advocate for living wills and wills in general. i don't care if you're gay or straight, having that legal document on hand will save you alot of heartache and trouble down the line IF/WHEN "something bad" happens. b/c it will. another thing ppl need to get is health savings accounts. you can put ANYONE on them, and the money you put into it is just for health care stuff your HMO won't cover. it's a life, time and money saver. and another way to help you take care of your significant other and the rest of your family. i know some jobs let you put anyone on your health care plan with you as long as you live together for a significant amount of time. no need to shout from the rooftops that you're gay and you love each other and are gonna be together for the rest of your lives. just get some paperwork in order and you're set. now, i KNOW that some families will fight these legal documents and employers will try to deny benefits, but that's expected. if you're worried about your employeer, you should both do your level headed best to get jobs where you BOTH have health care so no one is left out in the cold. there is health care available to those who don't work, or work from home, or work for companies that "can't afford" to provide health care for everybody. but EVERYONE can get an HSA AND a living will. then head to tiffany's and buy yourselves some rings, throw a party and you're set. i know so many straight couples that figured out that it didn't matter to them what the state or God thought about them being together. it just mattered TO THEM that they were together. i know that gay marriage does legitimize gays being "normal" in the world, but seriously, what's REALLY most important? the fact that you love someone and you two want to be together or that EVERYONE knows about it? if it's the latter, boy do you need some serious help. of course, if it's the former, you didn't need my advice in the first place. :p
Devynn at 4:01PM on May 16th 2008
79. My turn to interject here.
Argument: Homosexuality is a human sin. Animals don't do it...
Bullshit. Educate yourselves. Try to start here...http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y
Argument: Liberal Activist Courts...
In just this specific case, I say again, BULLSHIT.
3 of the 4 Justices of the California Supreme Court who voted to OVERTURN an UNCONSTITUTIONAL BAN on rights were appointed by REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS. (God, that is sweet.)
Argument: The PEOPLE of CALIFORNIA voted to ban Homosexual Marriages...
BULLSHIT! Yes, they got 61% of one of the LOWEST TURNOUTS in voter history in 2000. Remember this was the year that GWB was voted in. That fact alone should make all election results from that cycle null and void.
As a married, 'straight' man, kids, attending religious services regurly, and considered the most conservative member of my friends, family, and acquaintances, I APPLAUD LOUDLY at yesterday's ruling by the CSC.
In a nut-shell, NO ONE has the right to pass laws intending to discriminate against others with whom they disagree.
3 out of the 4 appointed by Republicans!!! That fact makes me smile. 3 out of 4!!
Peace
Segue into oblivion at 1:18PM on May 16th 2008
80. preteristvision, you've convinced me that you are insane. See my post on Ada's blog. By your admission, marriage would not be legal until children were produced.
That is insane. Nonfertile adults and adults who decide not to have children get married ALL THE TIME. What in the hell are you talking about? Do you know the definition of marriage? It is NOT the definition that you keep monotonously posting.
Here is the real definition of marriage:
"Marriage is a personal union between individuals".
In the USA, that includes the legal formality of civil marriage, in every state in the union.
There are many many reasons why people get married, procreation is one of them.
Don't be an idiot.
And the reason I brought up animal homosexuality was the contention by someone that it was not "nature" for homosexuals to be together.
Man, you are one fucked up dude.
Linda at 1:20PM on May 16th 2008
81. I'm not enjoying this posting thing as much after last night on the previous blog with robert. He's an easy mark, but he never gives up, like a weeble, he wobbles but he doesn't have the decency to fall down... and frankly I felt afterwards that the entire experience was a huge waste of time. Plus, the little fuck gave me indigestion. After a while all I wanted to do was snap his little neck, and that's hardly a good feeling for me. So I think I'll be around a bit less for a while. Gonna go do something fun. This place is starting to suck, kinda. Too many hypochristic babies pissing in the pool.
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:22PM on May 16th 2008
82. Sorry to be a downer... Go on with the conversation now.
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:24PM on May 16th 2008
83. "gays rubbing their gentiles"
Unintentionally hilarious.
AndrewV at 1:28PM on May 16th 2008
84. Brian, just between us, are you getting enough sex?
You seem edgy.
Linda at 1:29PM on May 16th 2008
85. Preteristvision:
Your repeated opinions(!) that mariage is a life-long contract between opposite sex individuals arising entirely from and for the purposes of reproduction and/or the "rights" of such offspring has no bearing upon the Constitutional laws pertaining to marriage. The laws regarding civil contract of marriage do not mention children, procreation or anyting remotely pertaining! Even the traditional marriage vows in most churches and other western religious ceremonies of marriage mention the responsibilities being contracted (love, honor...) but nothing is either implicit or mentioned regarding offspring. There is nothing in your repeated statements to the contrary that is supported by law or custom, regardless of what you may think!
Harvey at 1:32PM on May 16th 2008
86. What a yawn fest this is.
C'mon, Dinesh post something a little more stimulating...
Never mind.
Shit...this isn't even worth the energy.
Paul at 1:32PM on May 16th 2008
87. "Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church's position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral." - Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1627550020080516
Prove "that only unions between a man and a woman are moral"! You can't even prove that your god exists so how can you prove anything based upon your unsupportable belief systems? You can't, therefore your "morals" are null and void, certainly null and void when they impinge upon other peoples lives when those other people are not harming you.
Peter at 1:36PM on May 16th 2008
88. Oh, almost forgot. Heard from Botts today, or rather someone emailed me in his name. Kinda weird. Reminded me of one of those money scams from nigeria a bit, only of course, nobody asked for money. But, I'll post it anyhow. Here:
-------------------------------------
Good Day,
My name is Nareg Narbekian. I'm a close associate with a Gentleman that goes by the screen name "Botts" on an Aol blog. He has asked me to contact you. There are 2 specific people this message is going to, and he wanted only the 2 of you to receive this message. I don't ask questions, and I only do as he requests, however I do find it quite interesting that he blogs on AOL. Considering how he operates, I can only imagine what if any information he has divulged of himself.
He has reached Nigeria, and contacted me and requested for me to contact you and give you some details. Again, I don't know what he has said, I only know what he wants me to say.
His Company has purchased a two mile square radius of land in the Niger Delta. Picture a eye ball, and the dot that's in the middle. This is what the space looks like where they are operating. It is not a big space, and there are millions of people in the Niger Delta that need help. They can only help so many. They will be facing some serious hurdles, mainly the Government Military, and the Militia backed by the Government. However, this is nothing compared to what they have been through in the past. From previous experiences, Botts has now learned a great deal on how to secure things. The Rebels in the area will be protecting them along with the extra security that Botts has at all times wherever he is.
The plan is being done with extreme quietness. A lot of the Government have no idea that they are there doing this. This deal was struck with the President. Though a hardcore Muslim, he found doing business with Botts to be quite rewarding and has chosen right now to leave him alone. There needed to be a good diversion when they landed, so they could get everything and everyone into the Delta. This was the biggest challenge.
I won't explain what that diversion was, but if you search the news over there, I'm sure you'll find something.
Botts as I know him, is always 10 steps ahead of everyone else. It is the most remarkable thing I have ever seen, and I would never question him. This is why I'm in complete shock that I'm writing you upon his request, knowing you two are from a blog. I mean no offense, but if you knew him the way I do, I would never picture him blogging. But he always manages to pull a rabbit out of the hat.
I'm sure you have questions, but I'm told not to answer them. He did say I could give you a brief rundown of what I know about him.
He is 31 years old with a lovely wife and 3 children that is always protected by us. He is a self proclaimed Christian who loves the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, he is a Christian that is hard to explain. In my opinion, he follows the teachings pretty close. I am not part of a religion. However, I owe Botts a lot in regards to faith. He showed me God. And it wasn't imagined by me. I'm 44 years old, and met him 4 years ago. He claimed, that God speaks to him through any one and everything. He even said that God would speak to him through me.
All I know is this. We were together alone, and I blacked out for about 2 minutes. At that time, Botts explained that I was giving him messages. I didn't believe it. He put his hands over my eyes, and that two minute conversation got replayed in my memory. This is the only way I can explain it.
Even with this, I will not committ to a religion. He sees something in the Bible that I haven't seen yet. He also sees things in the Koran that I haven't seen yet. The teaching of Jesus is remarkable and if lived truthfully to that, it is beautiful. That still doesn't make it correct. Enough about that.
He said that if you want to, you may copy this message on put it on the blog if you choose to. It is up to you.
There will be two people that will communicate with you. One will be me, and the other will be a gentleman named , Egon Fritsche from Liechtenstein.
Please write back to confirm you received this message.
Best,
Nareg Narbekian
in
Syria
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:38PM on May 16th 2008
89. “The essence of democracy is nothing more than a government chosen by the people.” – Tim
And the laws passed by the people’s representatives are based on what the people view as right or wrong for their society. Essentially, their morality. Their collective morality.
People-->governement-->laws-->morality/customs of the people.
Or maybe this is better:
People-->governement-->morality/customs of the people-->laws
You criticize Dinesh for a view that you yourself hold.
“Personal morality should never be dictated by governments, democratic or otherwise. “ – Tim
Tim, governments dictate morality all the time. We have laws against stealing, rape, murder, and assault. We have laws that determine how much taxes we pay, where and when you can smoke, and fast we drive our cars. Hell, I have to register my damn dog every year with the town because they consider it “wrong,” in some form or another, to own a dog that they are unaware of.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree with: “The essence of democracy is nothing more than a government chosen by the people,” but it doesn’t stop there. Logic dictates that you ask: where do laws come from? They essentially are derived from the collective morality/customs/traditions of the people. Sometimes they are usurped by politicians, but to say that "It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community" is “spurious nonsense” is itself spurious nonsense.
You are both saying the same thing.
Regards,
Monty
Monty at 1:41PM on May 16th 2008
90. "The state does not have any interest in contractualizing mere affection, attraction, or love under penalty of law. Sorry, but that's the reality, and it has nothing at all to do with religion."
==========================================================
This dude is insane, right? Don't most people in our society marry for "mere affection, attraction, or love".
And what is this stuff about "life-long contract PUNISHABLE BY LAW" (my emphasis)
The contract of marriage include some restrictions, many benefits, and little "punishment by law" (except for those comedians who always tell jokes about how terrible marriage is)
Do you really not know the benefits of marriage for 2 individuals? Here are some:
Automatic beneficiary of spouse's estate in case of no will
Legal right to make medical and end-of-life decisions for a mentally incompetent spouse (i.e. unconscious)
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
There are hundreds of others.
I just read your other post on Ada's. You are insane:
"Since sexual activity still produces children, procreation is a *forced* consideration for couples whether they are thinking about it or not. Moreover, when in history was a life-long contract necessary for mere friendships or attractions? Finally, people who have childless sexual relations for many years are either sterile or extinguishing their children."
A "forced" consideration????
It never has to enter their minds.............
"Extinguishing" their children????
Like with an ABC extinguisher.
You are certifiable.
Linda at 1:41PM on May 16th 2008