Prop 8
Ξ March 13th, 2010 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |
I got into an argument with a number of anti-Proposition 8 (defining marriage in California) people a while ago, and I’ve been chewing over the discussion in my head for a while. There are two fundamental issues at play here: outcome and process. I’m a bit of a fence sitter on the outcome – as a Christian, I can’t argue against the fact that homosexuality is pretty clearly labeled as a sin. So, at a basic moral level, it’s wrong and should be discouraged.
But at the same time, I’m faced with a persuasive argument for toleration – that is people should be allowed to make their own choices and follow their own path through life. Christianity has develop the ability to tolerate other religions, which is a far more fundamental moral conflict than homosexuality. After all, if one can tolerate marriages blessed in the name of another god, which is a violation of the Ten Commandments, it strikes me that it’s possible to tolerate two guys getting married.
So I’m sorta conflicted on the issue, and I can see merit to both sides. This is a fundamentally philosophical and cultural issue, and positions are evolving and changing within society. People need to debate, and compromises need to be made within the public sphere. The last thing that needs to happen, however, is for this issue to become a legal one – taken out of the hands of the public and tossed about within the esoteric world of the courts. That is where the issue of Prop 8 comes in.
Prop 8 passed in California back in 2008. It was a plebiscite. Ever since then, there has been a nasty backlash amongst gay activists against supporters of Prop 8, mainly against Christians and Mormons. That aside, they’ve also mounted legal challenges to the Constitutional Amendment. The case is largely without standing, as the supporters followed all the rules for getting the proposition on the ballot, and the election was as free and fair as any in the US. It doesn’t violate California law, as it’s a constitutional amendment, which trumps any other statue. And if it had been in any way improper the California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, would have had it thrown out, as he was very sympathetic to the anti-Prop 8 side.
The only argument I’ve heard in support of their case is that it violates the 14th amendment. This strikes me as being absurd on it’s face, as the 14th amendment was designed to deal with issues of citizenship and specifically race. After all, it took another amendment to grant women the right to vote. The government regulates who may and may not marry in other respects already – states define at what age people may marry, how many people can be in a marriage, how close the relation between people can be that get married. The equal-protection clause doesn’t mean that the laws must be written to treat everyone equally, but rather that the laws must be applied equally to everyone (that is, the police can’t arbitrarily decide to whom various laws apply to, but those laws don’t need to affect everyone equally). If the former were the case, then the graduated income tax would be illegal.
This isn’t the civil-rights era all over again, where substantial segments of society were either legally barred or intimidated from participating in government. Certainly the gay-rights crowd was an active participant in the Prop-8 debate and subsequent vote. There was a lengthy debate and a free and fair vote. The outcome might not be the correct one, but it was justly arrived at. I understand that majority rule isn’t always right, and that the founders put in checks and balances against mob mentality, but here’s the thing – you aren’t going to fund a better method for dealing with social issues than that. The anti-Prop 8 crowd might want to put their faith in a friendly judiciary, but that’s like putting one’s faith in a benevolent despot – after all, it was the courts that gave us Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.
People’s minds change. Case law is much harder. Look at prohibition. People wanted it, discovered it was a mistake, and corrected it just 14 years later. Now look at socially divisive court cases. Dred Scott led to civil war. Plessy v. Ferguson lasted nearly 60 years. We’re still suffering the fallout from Roe v. Wade.
When it comes to philosophical issues, the only proper jury is the whole community. Attempting to impose an outcome by judicial fiat, as is being attempted by the anti-Prop 8 crowd, will only make the situation worse. Get the community to agree with you, don’t have some random judge force your opinion on people.
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
