On Democracy and Gay Marriages
June 18, 2008
Despite the very real fact that the threat of democracy hangs overhead, like the Sword of Damocles, many gay couples in California have embraced the opportunity to marry—even if it may be rendered symbolic in November. (permalinked PDF)
Although some couples said they preferred to wait until after the election because they feared their marriages would nullified at the ballot box, others said they wanted to make history, especially if the opportunity to get married could be lost.
“There’s a window, and we want to take advantage of that window, because who knows what’s going to happen in November,” said Jay Mendes, 40, as he and his partner of three years, Vantha Sao, 22, waited to obtain a marriage license in West Hollywood.
Whether through ex post facto law or some other usurpation of its privilege, what democracy giveth, so to can democracy taketh away.
This maxim applies to all facets of human life where government intervenes. If it is permissible for a government to say “all vehicles must be equipped with seatbelts and airbags” it is also permissible for a government to decree that no such vehicles can be produced or sold within its borders. If it is permissible for a government to ban certain foods, it is also permissible for a government to require the production and inventory of other foods. If it is permissible for a government by democracy to say “no smoking in any restaurant,” it is also and necessarily permissible if a government by democracy would say, “smoking must be permitted in all restaurants.”
If confronted by different circumstances, my guess is that the defenders of “traditional” marriage would start singing a different tune; that without the crutch of majority opinion, they would have to argue from some other principle: they don’t really believe that “traditional” marriage is right because a majority says so, that’s simply the most convenient argument they can presently offer.
They will never concede that at least in theory, if teh gay and their advocates were numerous enough, the so-called right to “traditional” marriage might be in jeopardy, but indeed this is an indisputable fact and it is the nature of the democratic process, which is evidenced by the constant appeal to a different definition of democracy: if the popularly elected legislators and their appointees permit a behavior, it is incumbent to raise a ballot initiative that would outlaw it. If the entire State ultimately permits the practice, then it is incumbent to petition for an amendment to the State constitution. If that fails, ask the national government to outlaw it.
Those who believe that only “traditional” marriage should be defined by the State, and hence through the democratic process, suffer from this affliction. It is easy to espouse the ideals of Democracy when you hold or presume to hold the majority opinion. The supporters of Democracy only use democracy insofar as they think they can use it to their advantage. When they can’t, they redefine the rules of the game.
Related posts:
- Rational Ignorance & Democracy: Part I On this election day, Ron Dzwonkowski, the editor of the...
- It Depends on What the Meaning of Democracy Is… Get ready for the newspeak: The EU is not a...
- Gay Marriage (the sequel) [ed. 8.35a 7/19/06 - d] The gay marriage ban, and...
- Gay Marriage (the sequel) [ed. 8.35a 7/19/06 - d] The gay marriage ban, and...
- Another Blow to Federalism Via CNN: WASHINGTON (AP) — A Senate committee approved a...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments
Leave a Comment
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
Most Viewed
- It’s Not Voluntary, and It’s Not a Contract - 245 views
- Public Goods Do Not Justify Taxes - 220 views
- On The Labor Theory of Value - 182 views
- Protesting Gold - 103 views
- “The Dollar Standard Flooded the World With Funny Money” - 96 views