Yesterday a federal court judge overturned the amendment passed by referendum in 2008 that banned same sex marriage in California. The case was landmark due to the fact that it was the first ruling on gay marriage made by a federal court of the United States rather than a state court, meaning that it will have national implications. It is believed that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court for hearing. A win or defeat at the Supreme Court level is a matter of exceptional importance for the gay rights community in the U.S. as it will have immediate implications, either possibly removing all same sex marriage bans (federal and state) or possibly stagnating the fight for equal marriage rights for decades to come.
I am happy...sorta. This is going to open the door for multi zillionaire Meg Whitman who runs commercials 24/7 in the most expensive race in California history against Jerry Brown who has spent nothing to remind us all that SHE would make sure Gays do not have equal rights under the law....telling us all how the majority should always rule to appeal to the usual suspects (the Faux News audience)..completely ignoring the fact that the "majority" NEVER approved of Interracial Marraige for starters...
eastofeden Wrote:I am happy...sorta. This is going to open the door for multi zillionaire Meg Whitman who runs commercials 24/7 in the most expensive race in California history against Jerry Brown who has spent nothing to remind us all that SHE would make sure Gays do not have equal rights under the law....telling us all how the majority should always rule to appeal to the usual suspects (the Faux News audience)..completely ignoring the fact that the "majority" NEVER approved of Interracial Marraige for starters...
Yes, luckily congress has already confirmed the former dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan, to the court. If it were not for the timing on this, she might have had a far more difficult time winning the nomination. It is likely that we will experience a negative reaction from conservatives from across the nation . . . esp. with the upcoming elections in November and the strength of the "Tea Party Movement".
US is a democratic country and democracy is based on human rights, not opinion of majority.
For example - i will flip a coin and get a bunch of ppl to wote on which side the coin has landed but their opinion won't effect the fact or outcome.
In case of marriage everyone should recognize that the only thing that stops same-sex couples getting married is religion. On the other hand bible also supports slavery and murder of your own children.
Excellent Point...and on another board that isn't gay oriented I responded to a post from someone who felt the need to allude to the tired old "majority rule" thing...I will C&P my post here concerning majority vs minority in a Democracy that was ion response to him...
Not necessarily...the majority does not have the right to discriminate against the minority and the STATE OF CALIFORNIA supersedes the voters...once again...Interracial marriage was NOT approved by the voters...the overwhelming majority said NO....they were wrong or do you or anyone else really think these bible thumpers (remember they used the same excuses then against interracial marriage they now use against gay marriage with their Bibles wide open) and superstitious f*cks are now sitting in heaven for doing the "work of God" and ruining people's lives for NOTHING!
Here is something everyone who thinks the majority rules should read...I am surprised so many... albeit faux... "patriots" who spout Democracy and majority rules are clueless or maybe if it doesn't suit their own ideology they just ignore it? Sorry for my tone but am sick of hearing the same tired crap.....
Democracy Requires Minority Rights
Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again. This holds equally true in a multiparty parliamentary democracy, where no party has a majority, since a government must still be formed in coalition by a majority of parliament members.
The Constant Threat
The American founders—Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike—considered rule by majority a troubling conundrum. In theory, majority rule was necessary for expressing the popular will and the basis for establishing the republic. The alternative—consensus or rule by everyone's agreement—cannot be imposed upon a free people. And minority rule is antithetical to democracy. But the founders worried that the majority could abuse its powers to oppress a minority just as easily as a king. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warn in their letters about the dangers of the tyranny of the legislature and of the executive. Madison, alluding to slavery, went further, writing, "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."
A half century after the United States was established, Alexis de Tocqueville saw the majority's tyranny over political and social minorities as "a constant threat" to American democracy in his pre–Civil War travels. While visiting the state of Pennsylvania, when he asked why no free blacks had come to vote in a local election he was observing, he was told that "while free blacks had the legal right to vote, they feared the consequences of exercising it." Thus, he wrote, "the majority not only makes the laws, but can break them as well."
...as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning.
Minority Rights I: Individual Rights vs. Majority Tyranny
Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning. In the United States, basic individual liberties are protected through the Bill of Rights, which were drafted by James Madison and adopted in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These enumerate the rights that may not be violated by the government, safeguarding—in theory, at least—the rights of any minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy.
The British political philosopher John Stuart Mill took this principle further. In his essay On Liberty he wrote, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others." Mill's "no harm principle" aims to prevent government from becoming a vehicle for the "tyranny of the majority," which he viewed as not just a political but also a social tyranny that stifled minority voices and imposed a regimentation of thought and values. Mill's views became the basis for much of liberal political philosophy since, whether it is free market or economic liberalism or social liberalism.
John Stuart Mill
How do majority rule and the protection of minority rights function in practice? Clearly, the two can easily collide when the assertion of Madisonian rights and Millian liberalism confront an unmovable democratic majority. In politics, the regularity of elections and the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances (see "Constitutional Limits") are the means for ensuring debate over the people's interests and views. http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php
Yes, luckily congress has already confirmed the former dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan, to the court. If it were not for the timing on this, she might have had a far more difficult time winning the nomination. It is likely that we will experience a negative reaction from conservatives from across the nation . . . esp. with the upcoming elections in November and the strength of the "Tea Party Movement".
Agree with you on every count...I am hoping that Obama will get lucky and get the chance to appoint yet another SC Judge,,,,,,soon.....
I've personally never understood how this is even a debatable question. The 14th Ammendment to the US Constitution states
Amendment 14
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
Which basically means you cannot deny one group of citizens the rights that another group enjoys. In my mind that means if anyone is allowed to marry, everyone is allowed to marry, plain and simple, end of story. Unfortunately there are some old crusty congressmen and senators in this country who feel it is their duty to enforce their interpretation of the bible on the rest of the country. I do take solace in the fact that demographics is destiny, the younger the group you sample the more accepting of things they are, so there is hope for the future.
The only great problem with all this is that the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution--in this case (as it was with interracial marriage)--are in direct opposition to the fact that states hold the right to make marriage laws.
Congratulations and best wishes to all our Californian friends. I've been a bit out of touch recently, but this news was reported in the UK and someone sent me a link to the Guardian's report.
Thanks, EofE, for your explanation. I have heard many Americans say that democracy is simply the will of the majority and this has never been a comfortable answer to hear.
Quote:the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning.
makes much more sense to me.
Judge Walker's comments were very heartening to read. I believe though that the lifting of Proposition 8 was only intended to be in effect till Friday?
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
