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 7 of 86)
91. "The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, "founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life"." - Reuters
Inalienable rights apply to individual human beings not the "catholic traditional family" whom the Pope speaks for.
Human life depends upon more than the natural birthing capability of women. Men have been doing it with each other (as have women) for eons and many other creatures in Nature have homosexual relationships. Gay or straight, sex is a natural process in humans and other creatures. To deny this is to deny your own natural reality. Oh, wait, but that is what the narrow minded views of the so called god fearing religious people are meant to do, deny their natural tendencies by being frozen in the dark ages of denial and control of people.
Now you have your choice so stick with it - as long as it doesn't harm anyone. Leave those who have another choice alone - as long as it doesn't harm anyone. There is no evidence that same sex marriage is any more harmful to people than opposite sex marriage is.
Peter at 1:47PM on May 16th 2008
92. reply to: 85
Peter,
Just curious, do you have morals? I'm assuming you do. And if you do, can you prove them?
Monty
Monty at 1:51PM on May 16th 2008
93. 82. Brian, just between us, are you getting enough sex?
You seem edgy.
Linda at 1:29PM on May 16th 2008
----------------------------
I get that way anytime it falls below three times a day.
No, actually, robert really soured me on it. He's such a little prick. Spent all last night going round and round on the previous blog. He couldn't understand one of my posts, because I was being intentionally cryptic to see if he'd be able to follow it, and even then he just laughed it off and kept going. I mean, I proved he's a moron, to his face, and he basically said "I know you are, but what am I?" over and over, unphazed. Got me so pissed off I wanted to kill him with my bare hands, practically. And there was nothing I could do with all that frustration.
I really don't like it when I feel sheer hatred for someone, and robert got me there and past it. He does "prick" better than I can do "saint."
So I need to regroup a bit.
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:54PM on May 16th 2008
94. Botts is hardkore
Mokele Mbembe at 1:56PM on May 16th 2008
95. Minority rights are essential to our democratic republic.
Morals are not absolute, Monty. There are opinions on what is moral and what is not. Of course Peter has morals. That is an assinine question.
For many it was moral to own slaves; even today, in some countries, it is moral to sell their children.
Yes, we decide for ourselves what is moral, and what can impact others usually result in laws.
For instance, I personally do not think adultry is immoral. I think state-sanctioned murder is immoral. I do not think gay sex is immoral. I think pedophilia is immoral. I do not think using drugs is immoral. I think selling drugs to children is immoral.
There are many versions of morality.
Linda at 1:57PM on May 16th 2008
96. Nature does not reward homosexuality. Procreation cannot happen, therefore the deviant behavior of the mating pair of homosexuals cannot be passed on to the next generation. Nature also corrects promiscuity, in humans at least, with STD's. Its not bigoted or mean spirited, simply a fact that nature punishes the type of behavior a few California judges are trying to legitimaize.
kevin h. at 2:00PM on May 16th 2008
97. 95. Nature does not reward homosexuality. Procreation cannot happen, therefore the deviant behavior of the mating pair of homosexuals cannot be passed on to the next generation. Nature also corrects promiscuity, in humans at least, with STD's. Its not bigoted or mean spirited, simply a fact that nature punishes the type of behavior a few California judges are trying to legitimaize.
kevin h. at 2:00PM on May 16th 2008
----------------------------------------
And it doesn't punish it, either. Many, many different types of lower animals practice homosexuality. Even penguins. Chimps do it all the time. Wanna ban chimps? Start with the guy you elected president.
And, nature REWARDS heterosexual promiscuity, with babies. Why do you think men always seem to need another woman, always want someone new to have sex with, even if they control it, and women tend to want only one man? Because by men cheating all the time, more babies are born! If that weren't true, the desire to mate with many females would have been BRED OUT of men tens of thousands of years ago.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:05PM on May 16th 2008
98. Linda,
I think we finally disagree on something. State-sanctioned-murder: If you mean "execution" I think it is necessary. Didn't always feel this way, but some people are so monstrous they must simply be stomped out. Adultery: I don't think it should be criminalized, but it is very immoral and traiterous. Unless the couple sets guidelines for an open relationship, it is weakness and betrayal.
kevin h,
"Nature also corrects promiscuity"
You don't believe that humans are the only promiscuous animal, do you? Many many species play the field without STD consequences. It's not a punishment, it means that when sex is the contagious vector, sexually promiscuous scenarios make contraction a significant risk for the unwary. I hope you're not equating natural law with morality.
"Nature does not reward homosexuality."
Sex is its own reward. Try it.
Mokele Mbembe at 2:12PM on May 16th 2008
99. 93. Botts is hardkore
Mokele Mbembe at 1:56PM on May 16th 2008
---------------------------------------
Yeah. I know.
Moke, I talk to botts all the time. And he's mostly pretty credible. I've never really thought that he was lying. He seems a straight shooter. And I like him.
But look at this email from him. Why is it setting off my bullshit detector?
Just curious if you noticed it too.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:14PM on May 16th 2008
100. "Morals are not absolute, Monty. There are opinions on what is moral and what is not."
If this is true then since we can't agree how do we decide what is law? Seems logical that we vote. Majority rules. There isn't any other way it would make sense. Under what conditions should a minority view of what is right be imposed on the rest of us? If your morals have no greater weight than mine then the best way for us all to get along is go with the majority.
But that wouldn't be "Right" would it? goddess said 'majority rule didn't overturn slavery' and that 'Some times what is right has to be forced down Americans throats'. That makes no sense if one persons morality is no better/worse than another's. It only make sense if there is a "Right" that is right regardless of anyones opinions.
bigTuna at 2:18PM on May 16th 2008
101. Monty, I agree with this: People-->governement-->morality/customs of the people-->laws
It seems the conflict we have here is over the differences in morals (our right/wrong compass). Our culture is changing, and so with it goes our laws...
Now I have to poof(copyright Mokele) and entertain some very short people.
Shannie at 2:20PM on May 16th 2008
102. Part of the problem with this subject is that both sides are partially right. To me the best approach to this issue is for the government to completely get out of the marriage business - period. The government should only issue civil unions - no marriage certificates to anyone. These civil unions would confer all of the legal rights such as inheritance, etc. If a couple wanted to get their union sanctified (face it - sanctifying something is inherently a religious process) as a 'marriage' in the eyes of whatever faith they followed, then it would be up to them and their religion to decide if that was doctrinally appropriate or not. And if the faith chose to not accept certain unions then that would be an issue of religious freedom, but the civil union would provide all of the legal and societal benefits.
Each side would have to compromise; religions would only be able to determine which marriages in their faith they wished to sanctify without globally prohibiting groups they chose to ignore from achieving equality under the law. By the same token, individuals would have to accept that their faith may not choose to apply the name of marriage to their union but a union exists none the less.
Steve at 2:21PM on May 16th 2008
103. We can use nature to explain how morality formed over time with social Darwinism. We cannot, however, use natural Darwinist observations to legitimize social morality. You can't kill your disabled child for food, or rape your neighbor to advance your progeny. When you try to define sex and marriage in terms of natural animal law, you don't have a leg to stand on if you try to push that definition into morality.
Mokele Mbembe at 2:25PM on May 16th 2008
104. 95. Nature does not reward homosexuality. Procreation cannot happen, therefore the deviant behavior of the mating pair of homosexuals cannot be passed on to the next generation.
-----------------------------
Sounds true. But if it is true, then we'd have very, very few homosexuals compared to how many there really are. No, I think it's probably genetically linked to other genes that ARE necessary to our survival... Whatever it's linked to, it's not going away. Because you're right, any behavior that leads to no babies instead of babies, is soon edited out of the code. So by your estimation, we should have almost NO gays in our society. So obviously, you're not correct.
And in some societies, like as in certain native american cultures, the homosexuals were a HUGE contribution to the tribe. Instead of being hated by the hetero men, they were recognized as important, in that they helped the tribe's women in the preparation of food and making of the items that they used, such as weapons and homes. They were valued and necessary. And so, maybe having a certain percentage of homosexuals was actually a boon to the reproductive capacity of the tribe as a whole, in the same way the old people and women were, to help out at the home front so that the babies were taken care of and nurtured properly and the food prepared.
And, if you don't know the story of Troy, the real story, the spartans were all GAY. The best fighters in the world, and the all sucked dick. They were all bonded to each other, but not only as brothers. As lovers, too. So obviously, gays also make good warriors, at least some of the time.
Don't ask, don't tell...
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:26PM on May 16th 2008
105. "If this is true then since we can't agree how do we decide what is law? Seems logical that we vote. Majority rules."
=========================================================
As has been stated NUMEROUS TIMES (sorry, I shouted) the criteria for deciding when you will "enforce" morality is pretty easy: if it harms or causes harm to others, in many cases, it is a sure bet that there will be laws in our country to support that morality.
I have yet to see proof (as did the majority judges in California) where the morality of gays and their marriages harm or cause harm to others. Can you tell me?
There is morality and there is morality. I am not gay. I do not have the right to judge their behaviour when it does not harm others. Frankly, neither do you.
Linda at 2:27PM on May 16th 2008