Irish Law has nicely captured the reality of how broad the invidious discrimination against gays is in our country. I'll go one step further and suggest that if a marriage amendment, that defined marriage as between one man and one woman (how those terms are defined is a discussion for another day) were on the ballot of every state, most of them would pass -- maybe all of them. Why? Because only a simple majority is required in many, if not most, cases. Same-sex attraction is, naturally, somewhat rare as compared to the larger population. People are still relatively ignorant. And, of course, I would be completely naive if I didn't acknowledge that there are also lots of people who have some basic belief - founded in religious teachings, or not - about the evils of homosexuality.
But she says something which really annoys me. She says (talking about gay rights activists):
"... the hope of activists, some of whom have made quite clear their contempt for legislative rule and popular democracy"
Then, quoting Matt Foreman, ED of NGLTF as an example:
"Ultimately this issue, like so many others in history, will be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, where they will not give a damn about what the state constitutions say," [executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Matt] Foreman said. (emphasis added)
The Supreme Court's primary role in our society is to interpret the Constitution of the United States. And, as IL knows, that Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. So, having a disagreement over how one views the 14th Amendment and its equal protection and due process clauses and resorting to the Supreme Court to clarify and define those rights (including, you know, marriage) hardly seems to me to show contempt for democracy. I don't even get how it shows contempt for the legislative process. It simply shows disagreement with the majority's opinion as codified by that process.
Isn't that what we should do? Should we, as a minority that is being blatantly discriminated against, simply stand aside and let the majority have their way? My sister is straight, but she's married to a black man. I'm guessing that she's glad people railed against the majority and ultimately had the legislative process overturned in Loving v. Virginia (the Supreme Court case that invalidated state laws banning interracial marriage). There are many examples in history, including our own history, where the majority has wanted one thing -- and even implemented that desire through law-making -- that discriminated unfairly against a minority. One of the reasons we have a Constitution, and a Bill of Rights is to protect all of us, from the unfair rule of a majority.
If we cannot gain this most fundamental of private rights (which hurt no one!) through the legislative process, we should use the judicial process. And, I'll go further than that. If we don't get it through the judicial process, we should use direct action, non-violent of course, but direct action nonetheless. Fairness will, in the end, win.
In the words of Mahatma Ghandi:
Whenever I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have always been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it:
ALWAYS.
[Update:] Immediately following the above post, IL has a new post wherein she argues that SSM is not an inherent right, but something constructed out of whole cloth. She goes on to say: "I'm perfectly willing to engage in a discussion, for instance, as Anthony Rickey suggests, about whether Christian morality allows for SSM (it doesn't, but it's fine to talk about it). "
Does anyone else see a problem with that sentence? What is the point of having a "discussion" with someone who is unwilling to consider an alternative view? I would have much less problem with her sentence, if she modified it slightly so that her paranthetical said (in my practice of Christian morality, it doesn't...). She completely ignores the tens of thousands of Christians whose Christian morality does allow for SSM.
Recent Comments