Left Flank

(For a wholehearted endorsement, I enjoyed all of November 7, 2008's «New Rules».)

Bill Maher heaps scorn on religion - and I'm not defending religion in the opposite way Maher ridicules it - when the real «elephant in the room» is money, as a proxy for speech in this constitutional republic, reacting weirdly with organized religion. Joe Queenan has a good point, that some liberals in California, and in Arkansas and Florida, might not be as comfortable with homosexuality as they brag. And, the Mormons put up the money to give them the means and the legal cover to express their discomfort.

On the other hand, I don't blame a majority of African-Americans from not accepting a civil right for homosexuals. As The Economist quipped, «...America remains a largely conservative country, opposed to gay marriage, worried about crime and suspicious of tax rises.» It might be ungrateful, though, because of the support African-Americans received from other civil rights groups. And, perhaps a majority of mainstream Americans are unaware of the fractiousness of all these groups for a «Yes, we can!» moment. Or, how plutocrats-masquerading-as-a civil-rights group, i.e., Mormons, could create a swamp full of their own fetid cash, to make 52% of Californians believe Mormons weren't overrepresented and didn't need to be heard so clearly over the screams of a minority. Chris at TNR offers a sound argument responding to Jeffrey Rosen's contention, that «...the California Supreme Court's decision to impose gay marriage by judicial fiat might trigger a backlash that would overturn the decision by popular initiative.»

If the function of the courts is only to protect suspect groups when the public is also in agreement, or soon to move in that direction, then the courts would not be needed to rule in civil rights cases -- the discriminatory laws would be struck down by the legislature with the support of the people. The purpose of the courts is to guarantee that suspect classes of people, such as racial minorities, women, and gays, are not deprived of their fundamental rights due to the vagaries and whims of the majority. I would argue that is it precisely WHEN the public is in favor of stripping rights that the courts must intervene, and not when public opinion finally shifts in favor of equality.

There's also this misguided reaction to gay outrage at Proposition 8's defeat:

The anger coming from this side of the political spectrum in recent days has been shocking, breath taking. These people are not reasonable activists, willing to accept the outcome of democratic elections, but hateful, angry radicals willing to get rid of democracy altogether in order to accomplish their goal.

One would almost dare these individuals to take it one step further; singling out Mormons is unfair. Do the same, then, for Catholics, white protestants, African Americans and everyone else who voted for Proposition 8. Instead, they show just how biased and intolerant they truly are themselves; their complaints about 'intolerance' from the other side are increasingly hypocritical.

A word of caution to these people - and this is coming from the perspective of someone who believes it should be legal: you'll lose the battle if you try to turn this into a major cultural war. You'll be squashed, destroyed, without any hope of every reaching your goal.

Firstly, talk is cheap - that's why paying for it, or trying to suppress it, is really egregious. No one yelled, «Fire!» Secondly, America is a constitutional republic, not a representative democracy. Minorities deserve an extra measure of protection, regardless of whether I detest esoteric eschatological beliefs. And, thirdly - why I voted against this same amendment in Florida - is, that no one gets to tell me how to define my religious beliefs, especially when the question of where I put my money is involved. I might be alone in this conviction, but I hope as an American, someone doesn't take away my chance to convince others I am not wrong.

Powered by ScribeFire.