Politics and Culture

I find it hard to believe that you can advance with a straight face the assertion that homosexuals have "equal protection" because they can marry a member of the opposite sex just as can a straight person. Don't you see just a teensy, weensy gap in that logic? Just an itsy-bitsy one, perhaps? Or are you just coyly pretending to be clueless?

By your logic, there would be nothing wrong with a law requiring that men and women all wear women's clothes. Why not? After all, we are all physically capable of wearing women's clothing. So there's no discrimination. If that sounds stupid, it's because it is stupid. Men are not women. And gay people are not straight. So the right to marry someone you're not biologically inclined to spend the rest of your life with in an intimate relationship isn't much of a right at all. What if you only had the right to marry members of the same sex, just like gay people. Would you think that fair or reasonable? "Equal" does not mean "same".

As far as natural law goes, what good is a "law" that doesn't explain the world as it actually is? How can can a law explain the world if it can't even account for people who are born with an persuasion which is supposedly "unnatural"? Perhaps we should arrest God for making people in defiance of this law.

The existence of homosexual marriage is irrelevant to whether a society can succeed, because straight people will continue to be married to members of the opposite sex.

As far as the California electorate goes, I live in California. I voted against the proposition in 2000 because I thought it was bad policy and unconstitutional. But it became part of the law. The ELECTED California legislature twice attempted to change the law, only to be vetoed by Schwartzenegger. He gave his blessings, however, to the ELECTED Supreme Court, which rendered today's ruling on their interpretation of what the California constitution requires. Had they come to a different result only because it accorded with their personal view of traditional marriage, THAT would have been true judicial activism. And if the California voters don't like it, they'll be able to change the constitution this fall - though I doubt they'll prevail. Democracy works just fine in these parts - and our minority is respected in the process. Everybody wins, and all without the sky falling in!

I think the problem is that society wants to favor a certain kind of relationship. Everybody can be married to a member of the opposite sex, even though some won't find it satisfying in one way or another.

Nelson? Please stop posting on Reddit. You've heard of declining property values when some worthless idiot moves in? Well...


Yeah.

The California Supreme Court vs. “The Will of the People”

By Alec L. Hansen
May 18, 2008


In the 24 hours since the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on the issue of same-sex marriage, I’ve never heard the phrase “the will of the people” used so often, with so little insight. Opponents of same-sex marriage accuse the court of pushing its own social agenda, because in the legislature (in 1977) and in a referendum (2000), majorities had already voted the other way. Who do these justices think they are, flouting the will of the people? After all, we live in a democracy, right?
Well, I hope so. I’m reminded of the day, when I was a teenager, that my Dad asked me “what’s the definition of democracy?” I mumbled something about having elections and letting people choose their leaders.
“So democracy means ‘majority rule’, right?”
“Yeah, I guess,” I lamely replied, knowing I was about to fall into a trap, but not knowing how to avoid it.
“No!” he exclaimed in triumph. “If a majority in Germany voted to exterminate the Jews, would that be an example of democracy? Or if 51% of Americans voted to rescind the voting rights of all persons of African descent, and turn them domestic servants, would that be democracy? You can only get to democracy if you start with the rights of the individual to be protected from the tyranny of the majority!” He explained that this is the reason Jefferson devoted the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence to “our unalienable rights,” why the framers of the Constitution spent so much time fine-tuning the separation of powers, and why the first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights.
He helped me to understand that majority rule is an aspect of our governmental system, but just one of many mechanisms that need to be in place to really ensure democracy. Probably more important is that a system of law genuinely protects the rights of minorities – and with that framework and those protections in place, the majority can then proceed to set the remaining policies with their votes.
When I was in high school, he encouraged me on school holidays to go find a court, wander around until I found an interesting case, and just sit, watch and learn. In view of the fact that we lived in Washington D.C. at the time, it’s especially noteworthy that he didn’t suggest that I watch Congress in action, but rather the courts. It was more fundamental to observe the rigorous, sometimes ponderous procedures of the legal system, which are aimed at protecting our rights, while balancing the “will of the majority” (as embodied in the prosecutor, speaking for “the people”). Lynchings, poll taxes, and many other atrocities have been carried out by the “will of the people” at any given time – clearly it’s not an infallible guide to good government.
My Dad believed strongly in these principles – they were not just words, but a guide for action. He grew up in San Francisco with many Asian friends, and was a student at U.C. Berkeley in 1942 when Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the internment of 110,000 U.S. residents of Japanese descent. He was one of only three students on the West Coast who staged a protest, and he landed in jail. (The next morning, he was bailed out by UC Berkeley President Robert Gordon Sproul – who said he was proud of him.)
After WWII, as an OSS officer in Vienna, my father had to use force to prevent a Soviet soldier from raping an Austrian woman – quite a risk at the outset of the Cold War, but he was unable to stand by as an atrocity was committed.
As an official in the Kennedy Administration, sent to Vietnam by National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy in 1962 for an evaluation, he reported that we would never win with the tactics we were using, in alliance with a corrupt government, supporting the oppression of the very people we were trying to woo away from communism. His report caused a stir and earned him many enemies in the administration, including Defense Secretary McNamara.
He was willing to take risks for the ethical principles he believed in – one of a breed that has always been rare but seems especially rare today.
Kenneth Hansen was no fan of reggae, but I think he would have appreciated these lyrics from Peter Tosh:
Everyone is crying out for peace, yes
None is crying out for justice
I don’t want no peace
I need equal rights and justice
∙ ∙ ∙
Critics of the Court’s decision appear to believe that anything that interferes with the desires of 51% of the population thwarts democracy. They fail to recognize that the actions of the courts are also a vital part of democracy. The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood clearly that the unfettered “will of the people” expressed through the ballot box becomes simply a “tyranny of the majority” – a frightening prospect. Precisely to prevent such tyranny they established a formidable bulwark – the separation of powers – ensuring that whenever the majority tried to trample the rights of minorities, the courts could step in to preserve those rights.
This is exactly what the California Supreme Court has done in Thursday’s decision. Citing the Court’s 1948 ruling (also 4-3) striking down restrictions on interracial marriages, they pointed out that ‘previous tradition’ and ‘the will of the majority’ were insufficient grounds to restrict the rights of individuals also in that case (amazingly, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t follow suit until 1967). Basic rights must be the foundation of democracy, and the courts have a key role to play in protecting those rights.
This is why, for me, the most unnerving fact that this controversy has brought to light is the ease with which California’s constitution can be amended. To amend the U.S. Constitution, for example, a two-thirds majority of both houses must approve the proposed language, and three-quarters of the state legislatures must ratify it. Most states have similarly high bars, preventing ill conceived and hastily passed amendments.
But California’s constitution requires only a simple majority of the electorate, and a proposed amendment banning same-sex marriages has already garnered enough signatures to appear on November’s ballot. The idea that a simple majority of the electorate can overrule the state Supreme Court is inappropriate…no matter what one’s position is on gay marriage, an amendment that makes it harder to amend the constitution should be a high priority for sane government in California.
In the meantime, I hope I will hear fewer shrill claims about the “will of the people” and more serious consideration of what it means to have rights, and what it takes to protect them.