Gay marriage, plebiscites, and the tyranny of the masses
Democratic governments should work to protect the rights of minorities not by querying the collective (who at the individual level tend to be ignorant of the intricacies of social justice, law and fairness -- not to mention their often prejudicial and reactive nature), but by having accountable institutions (like the Senate) recognize and enshrine civil rights and freedoms within the constitution or a bill of rights.
Otherwise, governments are enabling the majority to lord it over those who need to be protected from exactly that: the masses.
3 comments:
I have to agree with Anissimov's comment to George.
At which point do we want a beneficient dictatorship to protect every small group there is?
Hell, we're almost there now.
The trouble with that however, the end result is no rights for anyone !
Well, everyone will be equal finally I suppose.
Sad...we must soldier on until no one is denied basic human rights. The majority voting for and enforcing laws against the basic rights of a minority is by it's very definition oppression.
Michael
The "yes" vote on Prop. 8 [a California initiative on the November ballot], and which won by only 4%, imposes a state constitutional amendment to ban gay (or, I guess LGBT) marriage.
Since amending the state constitution by public plebescite, and to attempt to deny, under the contradicting primary constitutional clause of the state constitution that guarantees equal rights, and would over-ride denial of such rights to equal access, etc., is a central legal conflict, the initiative is now being challenged in the state Supreme Court as inherently unconstitutional. Such state initiatives have been ruled by the California court previously as unconstitutional for this reason alone.
Which I think is logically and legally, not to mention morally and ethically, the correct action to take. I hope and believe the court challenge will win, as it is only right to provide equal rights to all members of society, especially including minorities, and should not be at the will, vote, or discretion of the bare majority under both state and federal precedent and law regarding equal protection under law provisions.
Consider the issues and history, for example, of women's voting rights and the civil rights struggles by blacks in the past.
This too, thus, should and will be overcome, especially as the basis for the initiative in the first place was based on and primarily supported by those with conservative religious beliefs, particularly the Mormon and Catholic churches and parishoners.
Separation of church and state is a good thing, as Martha Stewart might say. Equal justice and freedom dictates equal rights, imho. And if not, why not? 8^}
Post a Comment