"Opponents frame the case as a challenge to the people's right to make law. In every one of the 31 state ballots where the issue has appeared, voters have defeated it, most recently in Maine. In the five states that permit such unions -- the District will join them this year -- the change came by legislation or court decision."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/10/AR2010011002606.html?hpid=moreheadlines
An interesting question to ponder--if something is clearly NOT the will of the majority of Americans, does the minority have the right to force it on everyone? It's a more complex question than it sounds, and I have no answers.
On the one side, this is a government driven by the majority will--as it should be, lest every little special interest take control and the majority become oppressed by small groups all over the place, making our society more akin to a monarchy or feudal society than a free society. On the other hand, I don't think it's right for the majority to have the right to tyrannize people (would I be opposed if they made a law, for example, that neo-nazis or Polygamists or Mormons automatically lose their children to the state, or if religions HAVE to give women the priesthood, or if homeschooling were illegal? YES.)
In the case they were discussing above, I am concerned: either the press is clearly pro-gay-marriage and is making our opposition arguments look inane, or the defense IS inane and we're in trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment