[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: The myth of the will of the people The myth of the will of the people By Eavan Callaghan Online Journal Contributing Writer October 6, 2005— I'm so tired of hearing about the will of the people. You can't put the discrimination of a minority up to a vote of the majority. That's fundamentally flawed. I know the majority of people are not gay. I know the majority of the people probably even think that being gay is wrong. What the majority of the people want is not the point. Yet the good Reverend Louis P. Sheldon, the right-wing fundamentalist Christian zealot, uses just such a flawed argument. In comments regarding Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto of AB 849, the bill passed by the California Legislature that would have provided equal rights and protections to all of the citizens of the State of California, Sheldon said, " . . . the people already spoke on marriage. 4.6 million Californians can?t be wrong when it comes to marriage . . .", I will attempt to educate Reverend Sheldon and his flock of uneducated followers on the Constitution of the United States. I will try to keep it as simple as possible out of respect for the very real possibility that Lou Sheldon and his follower's obvious lack of education could be the result of a lack of intelligence. Proposition 22 was passed by the voters in California in the 2000 election and limits marriage only to opposite sex couples. Benjamin Lopez, Reverend Sheldon's California lobbyist, proudly proclaims, ". . . 4.6 million Californians who voted for Prop 22 can?t be ignored simply to appease a small liberal minority." Well, yes they can, Mr. Lopez, but only if we strictly adhere to the Constitution and the original intent of the Founding Fathers as Lou Sheldon, et al, claim to want. If people are going to discriminate in life, they are also going to discriminate at the ballot box. We don't put up to a vote whether or not to let the Ku Klux Klan conduct a rally. We all know how that would turn out—it would end up being illegal. But that's free speech which is guaranteed by the very first amendment to the Constitution and it's already been decided by the courts. We let them rally because it is their right to do so. As an example of how this reasoning is fundamentally flawed, suppose you and I are in a room of 100 fellow employees of which 90-plus are fundamentalist Christians and fewer than 10 are gay. We are there to decide whether or not gays should be allowed to work at our company. We argue for awhile and nobody's mind is changed. The 90-plus fundamentalist Christians don't think we should allow gays to work at our company and the four or five gay people think it's okay, so we decide to do the 'democratic' thing. We're going to put it up to a vote! Why bother. We all know how that would turn out. The Founding Fathers knew this. That's why they set us up with an independent judiciary that is not accountable to the people. The Founding Fathers remembered clearly the bigotry and intolerance of the Puritans (the Lou Sheldon-type conservative fundamentalist Christians of their day) and wanted some protection for minorities as Harvey Wasserman points out in an Online Journal article: "One major reason Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, Ethan Allen and the vast majority of early Americans rejected the merger of church and state was the lingering stench of Puritan intolerance. The infamous theocratic murders of the Salem witch trials sickened the American soul . . ." The Constitution of the United States was written to provide protection for minorities and the Constitution of the United States was written to provide protection form religious zealots like Lou Sheldon and an independent judiciary was established to see that the Constitution was adhered to. This was the specific intent of the people who wrote the Constitution. Lou Sheldon and his fellow fundamentalist Christians, the Puritans of our day, want the judiciary to be accountable to the people who would discriminate. Otherwise he and his followers consider them renegade and activist. Where were these guys educated? Were they even educated? We want judges deciding what's right and what's wrong. We do not want judges doing what the majority of the people want. Lou Sheldon doesn't even want that; he's just not intelligent enough to realize it. Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D., a professor of English at Pennsylvania State University, correctly points out in an article for Online Journal: "The point had been clearly made by a 1968 Gallup poll that showed a whopping 72 percent of Americans opposed interracial marriage a year after the Supreme Court legalized it (Loving v. Virginia). A "popularity vote" in 1968 would have delayed interracial marriage equality for years. A "popularity vote" on codifying racial segregation in some Southern states—and probably a few others—in 1950 would almost certainly have delayed African Americans' civil rights for years if not decades." The fourteenth amendment of the Constitution says that I can't be deprived of liberties without due process of law. Liberty means that I have the right to conduct my life as I see fit even though many people think what I'm doing is wrong. This is true even if the majority of people think what I'm doing is wrong. In fact, this is true even if every person thinks what I'm doing is wrong. Unless, of course, what I'm doing infringes upon someone else's rights. That's the due process part. If judges decide that what I do does not infringe upon any other person's rights, then I have the right to do it. That's the end of it. We don't then put it up to a vote. Just because some people or even many people think that something is wrong is not a good enough reason to make it illegal. Remember due process. A judge would have to decide that it infringes on someone else's rights or that there is some other legitimate state interest in making it illegal. To make something illegal just because some people may think it's wrong begs the question, "wrong according to whom?" To make something illegal just because the majority of the people are Christian and Christian teaching tells them that it's wrong is making a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That is clearly unconstitutional under the first amendment to the Constitution. It's the very first item in the Bill of Rights! It's unconstitutional to make something illegal just because some religion teaches that it's wrong. So what's the answer for Lou Sheldon and his puritanical fundamentalist Christian followers? They want to change the Constitution! Yes, the very same people who want 'strict constitutionalists' who will adhere to the original intent of the Founding Fathers as judges want to change the Constitution to discriminate against a minority. Lou Sheldon and his fundamentalist Christian followers want to change the constitution to discriminate against the people the Founding Fathers set up our form of government to protect. At least one state, Massachusetts, has already decided that it's okay for gays to get married. The fundamentalist Christian is very afraid that these marriages will become recognized by other states. Well, guess what, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution says that is exactly what other states are supposed to do. This is not an amendment to the Constitution. This is actually part of the Constitution itself. Once again the answer for Lou Sheldon and the fundamentalist Christian is to change the Constitution. Here's a news flash for Lou Sheldon and the right-wing conservative fundamentalist Christians of this country, the Constitution of the United States is a liberal document. The Constitution of the United States is designed to protect the very people that Lou Sheldon and the right-wing conservative fundamentalist Christians would have thrown in jail or eliminated from the face of the Earth all together. So who is the activist? Who is it that wants to change the meaning of the Constitution or, indeed, to change the Constitution itself? Who are the renegades who want to deviate from the original intent of the Founding Fathers? Why, it's Lou Sheldon and the right-wing conservative fundamentalist Christians. The fundamentalist Christians rail against those who seek to change the meaning of the Constitution and yet it is they who want to not only change the meaning but to actually change the Constitution itself. The Family Research Counsel, another conservative fundamentalist Christian group led by the narrow minded Tony Perkins, recently put the definition of a bigot in an article on their web site denouncing the passage of a hate crimes bill that includes gays: "A bigot is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ believing they, as a group, deserve special treatment above and beyond everyone else. If you ask most Members of the House of Representatives what they thought of bigotry they would rightfully condemn the act, which makes it inexplicable that 223 Members of Congress would vote last night to make a new tier of hate crimes—one for homosexuals, with harsher penalties, and another for everyone else." Leaving aside the fact that " . . . believing they, as a group, deserve special treatment . . ." is not part of the definition of a bigot and, thus, bigotry had nothing to do with the passage of the bill, this definition fits Tony Perkins, Lou Sheldon and the fundamentalist Christians to a tee. The definition is simply, "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." I actually admire the fundamentalist Christians for having strongly held beliefs. It is their right and I actually think it's good. It's the intolerance part that I have a problem with and who is more intolerant than fundamentalist Christians? This is especially true with respect to their attitudes regarding gays. I don't know how these facts could escape Lou Sheldon, Tony Perkins and their followers. They put the definition of a bigot on their web site which they denounce but which fits them to a tee. They denounce people who they claim want to change the meaning of the Constitution as renegades and activists while it is they who want to actually change the Constitution. They say they want to adhere to the original intent of the Founding Fathers but they want to change what the Founding Fathers wrote to suit their purposes. They want to eliminate the minority protections the Founding Fathers took great pains to provide us with and they want to codify religious dogma which is clearly unconstitutional. I can't decide if they are hypocrites or terribly undereducated or just plain stupid. I suspect a lot of all three. The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Online Journal. Email editor@onlinejournal.com Copyright © 1998-2005 Online Journal. All rights reserved.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
What a ridiculous article. He waxes a little and then distorts the simple wording of the Constitution, entirely.. then gloms onto a liberal judiciary which is more favorable to his views than the population at large. Then he tries to race bait a some and compare jamming his dick in someone ass to the Civil rights struggle. Fact is, he's not inherently protected by the Constitution in any way, shape or form. Homosexuality is a behavior, Race is a condition. It's allot like saying the old Libertarian "no force, no fraud" arguement.. Sorry, guy's.. that's not what the Constitution says. For example, we're not going to let you screw a goat on your front porch, even if you own them both, and there's nothing written in the Bill Of Rights that will protect this behavior, either. He is correct in saying that you can't put the RIGHTS of a minority to a vote (As the BOR is, logically, unammendable. If these things are inherent, they can't be voted away.) The problem is, he has no "right" to have his queer union officially recognized & codified by the State of California in the first place. The rest is portrayed as Christian "bigotry" and a conflict of the supposed seperation of "Church and State" but in reality, there's no proof that this is the case. His silly union disgusts people. From a poll I read once, blacks are particularly grossed out by queers. Does this mean Blacks are collectively horrible and stupid and all the other labels he's tossing at Christians? Homosexuality violates the tenents of many religions, Islam and Judaism being the most obvious.. but it matters not. If a Jew on the Federal bench, for whatever reason, were disgusted by his phoney "right" does the First Amendment render his opinion on the matter null and void? Of course not.. This man is obviously desperate to make his case.. Unfortunately for him, he doesn't have one so far as Constitutional protections are concerned. His best arguement would be unbridaled emotionalism. IMO, he should stick with it.
"When the government FEARS the People, there is liberty, but when the People fear the government, there is tyranny."
The author is re-stating a common cannard that the gays use to bolster their arguments which has a basic flaw that sinks the argument. The only reason that laws exist (if they are to be taken seriously) is to codify existing behavior that the majority endorse at a social level and to curb or punish behavior the majority DON'T want. The majority of people are against murder, rape, theft, graft, etc, thus we have laws codifying what the majority believes. When a majority eventually changes socially to an extent that a law is no longer valid as no one would obey it anyway, or it just becomes laughable, either the law is ignored, or revoked. Like Sunday "blue" laws in many states forbidding certain behaviors or sales on the Sabbath - as people came to view weekends differently, these laws lost their impact and have been revoked in most areas. You cannot indefinitely impose laws upon people - from the bench particularly - that the majority DO NOT and WILL NOT support on a social level. This makes the law a joke and only provokes anger and disgust from the people. It doesn't work. Whether a law is a good idea or bad, ultimately IT MUST reflect the will of the majority of people. For the overwhelming majority of people will, once they've reached a certain level of majority in life (out of their teens), will STILL view the relationship of a man and woman and their children, differently than that of two homosexuals, no matter how the gays try to emphasize or insist on the similarites. That is just a social reality regardless of law. Yes, I know they're trying to brainwash us, and they've been propagandizing (rather successfully) for the past several decades to get people to accept the gay lifestyle, but I think this has resulted more in tolerance, than acceptance. It's also a pretty long step from embracing or celebration of it. When the "Law" becomes too discordant from the real, normal behavior and beliefs of people in their regular social lives, the law becomes the butt of jokes, derision and neglect. This attempt to legislate around the majority to enforce a minority's status or preference will ultimately increase resentment towards that minority, and disregard for the law in general. Laws that the majority of people do not support lead to lawliness ultimately. As for the rancid argument once again comparing black people to gay people - of course there is no comparison. Gays have never been enslaved, and most of them are far from poor. There actually is little real discrimination against gays unless they parade their behavior in people's faces. You cannot legislate against disgust which is the reaction, along with some mirth, they generally provoke in most peaople who are forced to witness their behavior. Bottom line though, is that the majority actually DID approve of at least some of the civil rights legislation, as they would have voted in enough people by now to repeal some of these laws. As far as I can see, there have been no attempts to do so. White Americans don't generally hate minority Americans, or wish them harm - the usual way they deal with the situation is to move into a non-minority area. Avoidance rather than repression has become the standard in this country.
Excellent conclusion, I agree with this. The gays have been most successful when they've done the "we're just like you" routine, or when they've shown how gay people "suffer" so much more than straight people, such as when gay young people are beaten up or commit suicide. These are emotional arguments and that is how they've made their inroads into changing public opinion from outright revulsion to mild tolerance. I don't think they're going to get past that, as for most people previously homosexuality was either a stereotype that they had seen, such as the lisping gay man, or something theoretical that they couldn't quite envision. As gay people become more and more "liberated" and out of the closet, and people get to see more and more of their real, normal behavior, they will remember why they didn't care for gay people in the FIRST place. People need to witness the behavior, such as in gay parades, etc. Most Americans are trained, and actually ARE pretty tolerant as a group - but when they see something graphically like a gay parade - it tends to make things more real and less theoretical. Gays don't consider that all those laws and prohibitions against them in most societies didn't just come about because some big guy named Jehovah proclaimed them from his own SCOTUS bench in the sky. The laws came about because they codified beliefs the people already HAD. Even in those societies which were particularly tolerant of homosexuality, they made a clear distinction between the marriage of men and women, as it has a distinct purpose - the rearing of children - and the relationship of two gay men.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||