The Los Angeles Times reports today (8/13/10) that the “moral argument” over California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriages, “has morphed into a debate over the democratic process and the propriety of judges overturning laws approved by voters.”
It’s strange, then, that an article on this “debate” would feature only viewpoints from one side: the side that says, “The people voted on it and it should be left alone.” All five of the sources quoted by reporter Mike Anton took this position. (There was also a two-word quotation from Judge Vaughan Walker’s ruling: “moral disapproval.”)
Anton does note that “tension between ‘majority rule’ and a Constitution designed to protect the rights of individuals against the majority” is “one of the oldest conflicts in the nation.” Given that, wouldn’t it make sense to find someone to take issue with his sources’ assertions that “in a democracy, the people decide”?
I’m guessing nearly 100% of the people who voted for Prop. 8, and who are now squawking that the majority of voters have been overruled, are supporters of the 2/3 requirement for new taxes and for passing a California budget. Their support for “majority rule” is, to be charitable, flexible.
What was really missing from the Prop 8 debate is that the difference between the pro and the con was less than 5%…and the pro prop 8 used deception & lies & lots of money to get it passed. The vote was to illegally abandon the bill of rights…not a very smart action to begin with.
Once passed, they had equal opportunity to defend Prop 8, but just like opposition to marriage equality in Iowa, they had nothing: a couple of witnesses with degrees in one field wanting to testify about something completely different…almost like they wanted to lose their cases. So then NOM says they’re going to raise $10 million.
Maybe they’re just crooks!
Eli,
This is a valid point, but I think that those who are now celebrating the judge’s decision are very likely inconsistent as well. You can’t protest that the judges get to, say, set the rules on paid signature collection against popular demand, and then contend that it is the judges’ role to uphold rights against majority wishes.
The judicial system, as it is currently designed, is an explicitly oligarchical system – we should not be legitimating it by accepting its false pretenses to be a bastion of justice. That doesn’t mean that it should not used, but it should be seen as an unjust tool in an unjust world.
I’m happy to be rid of the concept of “tyranny of the majority.” It was a concept used largely by wealthy elites to hold on to power and property. It leaves you as less of a hypocrite when you decry private media ownership. Ironically, I think the religious right used a very similar argument when they claimed granting a minority group marriage rights would be a state intrusion into their minority of churches.
Anyway, this is really a stretch, but if you accept the that only about 79% of eligible voters actually voted, and the passing of the ballot at 52ish percent, no majority exists among them anyway.
Additionally, I’ve heard that public opinion has swung the other way, and that another vote would overturn it. Pretty much any way you slice it, you can argue that the majority deciding isn’t such a big problem.
Speaking As a staunch conservative but not for all conservatives(or Dems) …… I think No rights should be with held from gay couples in any way that are given to straight couples.Once all things are said and done and the courts have shaken out the dust,that will be the end result.It could be ten years it could be 50.This is all a waste of political capital at a time of serious problems.Obama is against it.McCain was against it.The people living in those areas of prop 8 are against it.As the judgement of many court actions show “they’ are against it. So the road will be long.But in the end life is short and the majority of people are good.The people will choose I think to remove government restraints from allowing people to choose their own way.Let people live.If you think it silly,laugh and move on.Personally I could care not one wit if marriage is allowed between gays…..Poligamy….two separate marriages at the same time.Marry a parrot for all i care.The Idea of marriage is a joke in Hollywood believe me..Other places maybe it has a deeper meaning.Let people make fools of themselves or build deep meaningful happiness.But the government should steer clear.