Tyranny of the Majority

[keepCAblue]

From Tehama County's Daily News: http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/ci_10874714?source=email

Dr. Joe Harrop: Some perspectives on Proposition 8

(snip)
In looking back to our Founding Fathers two important concepts were clearly incorporated into the creation of our country. One is that we are not a theocracy. Our constitution makes no mention of God, and the First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

From this amendment we have developed the concept of separation between church and state, a complicated concept that gets batted around every so often. One thing is clear, however, we cannot impose a specific religious belief upon everyone. While we tolerate many religions, we do not allow one to dominate the civil life of our republic.

A second concept embedded into the foundation of our nation is protection from tyranny of the majority. This concern is demonstrated at various levels, from the Electoral College, the original restriction of suffrage, the indirect election of Senators, and so on; it has been reinforced by many court decisions over the last 200 years.

The concern over tyranny of the majority has been around since Plato's Republic and was a key part of the Federalist Paper #10 which argued for the new Constitution. John Adams, who became our second President, pointed out that the pages of human history are filled with examples of the desires of the majority for injustice and inhumanity against the minority (my paraphrase). Adams' point was that a simple majority vote should not be able to take away rights available to all from a minority. That is why our Constitution was written as it was.

(snip)

The courts have guarded minorities from the tyranny of the majority. For example, members of Jehovah's Witness were allowed not to salute the flag because it conflicted with that denomination's core tenets; they were harassed and punished for their beliefs. Although the Supreme Court originally ruled against them, it reversed itself and upheld their right to practice their religion; the court's decision was made after it was clear what the Nazis were doing in Germany. In some ways the court said, we couldn't let majority oppression get a foot in the door.

(snip)

Conservative philosopher Ayn Rand said, "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority"

[Ian David]

1. I donated to No on 8! n/t

[keepCAblue]

2. Thank you, thank you!

Every $ and every vote will help fight the tyrannical right.

That said, I have a sick feeling brewing in my gut that this POS will pass. Tuesday night will be a very tough and emotional night in our household, as it will be in thousands of other homes across the state.

[smkyle1]

5. hang in there -- we only have a few hours left n/t

[Fearless]

3. Let's see...

"True, the views of a minority are viewed as preferable over their own. But, what we must realize is that the sole duty of democracy and government is to protect the rights of man. Therefore there will come a time when it must protect the majority from itself for the sake of the institution..."

http://unwilling-dystopia.blogspot.com/2007/01/rantings-of-mad-man-part-xii.html

[smkyle1]

4. we can follow more than one set of laws

I think it's important that before we begin to debate the rightness or wrongness of any law of the state (as opposed to spiritual laws, or natural laws, or laws of physics), we must keep in mind at least one fundamental notion:

* The state’s laws exist, on some level, to meet one basic requirement; to maintain a civil society and keep social order. The law’s enactment and adherence to it should at least promote behavior that benefits or protects society from those behaviors that lead to chaos or anarchy.

I hear lots of people say that they really “feel” that marriage should be between a man and a woman. There isn’t anything wrong with having that feeling except when you try to impose your feeling on to some else.

Whenever I hear arguments, for or against Prop 8, that are prefaced with “I really feel,” I’m reminded of the Southern slaveholders who really “felt” that the best life for blacks was a life of bondage. I’d bet that many of them truly “felt,” in their heart of hearts, that their vision of how blacks should be treated was infallibly correct, so therefore the laws supporting slavery were “right.”

I’m not being facetious. I’m trying to make the point that one’s personal “feelings” aren’t particularly relevant when determining what guidelines we, as a state, adopt to maintain a civil society.

We have a system of government that, while imperfect, is the best we know of at this point. It must balance the needs of all of the many diverse groups that call this state home. It was intentional that there be a separation of church and state so as not to unfairly burden anyone with someone else’s religious mores — as well as for other reasons. By the same token, the system promotes laws that protect everyone.

This does not mean that the laws of the church are invalid. It simply means that individuals choose, of their own volition, to practice whatever religion they prefer. The state has no hand in that.

I guess the bottom line for me is that the state’s laws cannot and should not serve as the only laws we follow. We have our own moral compasses, our own set of rules documented in the holy scriptures or wherever you go to seek guidance in life.

One of my many pet peeves throughout this Prop 8 debate is that those who support it use the Bible to buttress their argument, but the current California State Supreme Court decision does not give same sex couples the right to a religious marriage. The current law gives them the right to a civil ceremony, which involves entering into a marital contract with all the obligations and privileges this legal device provides.

This used to be the exclusive realm of heterosexuals, but the California Supreme Court was right, if its goal was to do what was in the best interest of all the people.

I don’t want to close this essay without saying that personal feelings are important and we shouldn’t discount them. I like what Wanda Sykes says on this topic. I can’t quote her verbatim but, paraphrased, she said — If you feel same sex marriage is wrong, don’t marry someone of the same sex. It’s just that simple.

[xchrom]

6. under the law marriage is not religious period.

whther you get married in a church or not.

to the state it is a secular contract -- that you marry with religious trappings is up to the individual couple.

[Ellen Forradalom]

7. That is the answer to the wearisome "activist judges" trope.

They are not imposing their views on an unwilling majority, they are deciding questions of law and rights.

The tyranny of the majority is what makes democracy such a frightening exercise sometimes--because the majority can sometimes do horrible things.