Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Marriage opponents want to ban Constitution

Part of the argument in the appeal of the Prop8 case was that the judges should not substitute their opinions for the views of 7 million Californians. Somehow, they seem to believe that if the majority of voters approve of something, it's untouchable.

I often wonder what part of the Constitution these folks read, because they clearly have missed some of the foundations of our republic.

By their logic, a majority of voters in any state could outlaw Jews from holding office, re-instate separate water fountains, or deny women the right to vote.

At some point in our history, a majority of Americans in one jurisdiction or another have approved of each of these. The pro-Prop8 voters in CA are no different.

"But being gay is different!" sputter the Prop8 supporters. Of course it are: is disadvantaged group is different in some way, it's why they are picked out as different. Civil rights are defined as "the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality." It was a civil rights battle when women fought for the vote. It was a civil rights battle when the rules against Asian immigration restriction were challenged. It was a civil rights battle to eliminate Jim Crow. And this is another civil rights battle.

The Constitution exists in part to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Courts are the final, independent arbiter of those rights and can only be so if they are free of threats.

The supporters of Prop8 may wish that their votes supersede my rights. But to do so would be to fundamentally change the foundation of our country. It would eliminate the protections associated with an independent judiciary.

Indeed, NOM and others are engaged on an attack on the judiciary--it was the foundation of their punitive campaign in Iowa, where they recalled three of the state supreme court justices in a retention campaign. This does not change anything about the pro-marriage decision in Iowa. It's just a punitive reaction and anger from a mob with the modern equivalent of pitchforks.

If NOM had their way, they would open the doors to outlawing religion. While they fulminate that that is the "agenda" of the gays, in fact what they are doing is far more dangerous to their own interests than anything our side plans. indeed, our side has taken steps to protect free speech and religious expression. Their side wants to destroy them.

The anti-equality side has become a particularly dangerous anti-Constitution campaign. That's why they are listed as hate groups. The only hope is that the more extreme they become, the more the folks in the middle realize who the extremists are--and choose instead to support the rule of law, and love.


James said...

I just heard that the 60th "repeal DADT" committed and the Senate will vote on it. Very good news except for the sexually insecure Marines.

JCF said...

I hope you're right, James.

As always, I'll believe it when I see it, not before...


I believe the ProH8 crowd believe "it's not animus if Teh Gays DESERVE out fear&loathing!"

JCF said...

Off-topic---but a new peeve I wanna discuss:

Resolved: to say you "don't hate teachers, just their unions" is like you "don't hate gays, just their immoral lifestyle."

Discuss? (or not. I just was hearing Yet More Teachers' Union Bashing today, and the analogy came to me.)