a 'spaination
Here we go, julival.
In yesterday's elections, among other happenings, the electorate in Maine voted to strike down the state's law allowing gay marriage, by a 53-47 margin.
The first thing that bugs me about this is how the conservatives and "pro-marriage" folks are crowing about their "victory" for "families" and "traditional American values" and about defeating the big bad evil Gay Agenda in yet another state; they're exultant about following "the will of the people" and claim that, yet again, Christians or whoever have won. It is true that in every state where gay marriage has been put to a popular vote it's been shot down, often by huge margins. But to me this isn't just a simple "people's will" issue as much as it is an indication that, frankly, majorities are oftentimes just plain ignorant and stupid, especially when that ignorance is goaded by religious leaders. It was in California, and it was in Maine.
There's a reason why the United States is not actually a democracy, but rather a republic; the Founding Fathers feared the power of the popular majority and created a government that was of, by, and for the people yet not immediately subservient to majoritarian whims. In fact, the House of Representatives was originally the only part of the government that was in any way directly democratic; the Presidency was indirectly elected by the people through the Electoral College, while the Senate was elected by the various state legislatures. Although these days you'll hear people say that the Founders were misplaced in their fear of popular majorities, I don't think they were at all. Majorities can do good things (like overthrow Communism), but they can also do evil things (like slaughter wholesale the French ruling class and clergy).
I believe, as cinchntouch said in a comment, that there are fundamental rights that should not be subject to popular approval. This includes all of the rights set forth in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The white majorities of every Southern state in the 1850s, had they been given the vote on a referendum, would have supported retaining slavery, and probably by an overwhelming margin. That same constituency voting in the 1960s would have retained segregation. These things would not be acceptable today. So, why is it acceptable then to subject the right of consenting adults to marry without State interference to a popular majority? People are stupid, and people acting as part of an electoral majority are especially stupid.
What angers me more than anything is how the churches, my own in front of the pack, are driving this stuff. Few people in Kansas cared about gay marriage one way or another until the pastors of two Wichita churches, allied with wealthy outside interests, rammed it down our throats, and suddenly it became The Issue Of Doom upon which depended the future of morality, family values, and Christianity. These religious idiots will bitch and moan till they're blue in the face whenever they think the State is interfering with their rights, but will turn right around and goad their equally idiotic, intellectually lobotomized followers into forcing the State to trample on the civil rights of people they don't like through the medium of popular referendums.
I don't believe churches should be forced to perform gay weddings or stop preaching that homosexuality is a sin; they have as much a right to those positions as those of us who believe in equality. I do believe, however, that churches whose clergy, with church support, openly encourage their congregations to vote one way or another should lose their tax exempt status. When they do things like that, as the Catholic Church along with many others did in California concerning Prop 8, they have crossed a line. If they expect the State to refrain from meddling in their affairs, they must themselves refrain from meddling in those of the State.
Funny thing is, these same jokers, the people who endlessly whine about "judicial activism" and "thwarting the will of the people" with issues like gay rights would love nothing better than to overthrow Roe v. Wade through that same judicial activism, since they know that a popular majority supports abortion rights and that they'll probably never get it done through legislative means at the national level. I am a big believer in Church-State separation, but that separation is a two-way street. Once Churches start dictating to the State what it can and cannot do, through the instrument of church followers acting as a popular majority, they've started acting as evil (yes, I mean that) as the Communist regimes who oppressed them. It may be a difference of degree, but it is not a difference of kind. Each seeks to limit the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens for ideological reasons.
Liberty is not relative, and freedom does not reside in a majority vote.
In yesterday's elections, among other happenings, the electorate in Maine voted to strike down the state's law allowing gay marriage, by a 53-47 margin.
The first thing that bugs me about this is how the conservatives and "pro-marriage" folks are crowing about their "victory" for "families" and "traditional American values" and about defeating the big bad evil Gay Agenda in yet another state; they're exultant about following "the will of the people" and claim that, yet again, Christians or whoever have won. It is true that in every state where gay marriage has been put to a popular vote it's been shot down, often by huge margins. But to me this isn't just a simple "people's will" issue as much as it is an indication that, frankly, majorities are oftentimes just plain ignorant and stupid, especially when that ignorance is goaded by religious leaders. It was in California, and it was in Maine.
There's a reason why the United States is not actually a democracy, but rather a republic; the Founding Fathers feared the power of the popular majority and created a government that was of, by, and for the people yet not immediately subservient to majoritarian whims. In fact, the House of Representatives was originally the only part of the government that was in any way directly democratic; the Presidency was indirectly elected by the people through the Electoral College, while the Senate was elected by the various state legislatures. Although these days you'll hear people say that the Founders were misplaced in their fear of popular majorities, I don't think they were at all. Majorities can do good things (like overthrow Communism), but they can also do evil things (like slaughter wholesale the French ruling class and clergy).
I believe, as cinchntouch said in a comment, that there are fundamental rights that should not be subject to popular approval. This includes all of the rights set forth in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The white majorities of every Southern state in the 1850s, had they been given the vote on a referendum, would have supported retaining slavery, and probably by an overwhelming margin. That same constituency voting in the 1960s would have retained segregation. These things would not be acceptable today. So, why is it acceptable then to subject the right of consenting adults to marry without State interference to a popular majority? People are stupid, and people acting as part of an electoral majority are especially stupid.
What angers me more than anything is how the churches, my own in front of the pack, are driving this stuff. Few people in Kansas cared about gay marriage one way or another until the pastors of two Wichita churches, allied with wealthy outside interests, rammed it down our throats, and suddenly it became The Issue Of Doom upon which depended the future of morality, family values, and Christianity. These religious idiots will bitch and moan till they're blue in the face whenever they think the State is interfering with their rights, but will turn right around and goad their equally idiotic, intellectually lobotomized followers into forcing the State to trample on the civil rights of people they don't like through the medium of popular referendums.
I don't believe churches should be forced to perform gay weddings or stop preaching that homosexuality is a sin; they have as much a right to those positions as those of us who believe in equality. I do believe, however, that churches whose clergy, with church support, openly encourage their congregations to vote one way or another should lose their tax exempt status. When they do things like that, as the Catholic Church along with many others did in California concerning Prop 8, they have crossed a line. If they expect the State to refrain from meddling in their affairs, they must themselves refrain from meddling in those of the State.
Funny thing is, these same jokers, the people who endlessly whine about "judicial activism" and "thwarting the will of the people" with issues like gay rights would love nothing better than to overthrow Roe v. Wade through that same judicial activism, since they know that a popular majority supports abortion rights and that they'll probably never get it done through legislative means at the national level. I am a big believer in Church-State separation, but that separation is a two-way street. Once Churches start dictating to the State what it can and cannot do, through the instrument of church followers acting as a popular majority, they've started acting as evil (yes, I mean that) as the Communist regimes who oppressed them. It may be a difference of degree, but it is not a difference of kind. Each seeks to limit the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens for ideological reasons.
Liberty is not relative, and freedom does not reside in a majority vote.