ACLU on Gay Marriage: "Majority Rule Should Never Apply"
Submitted by FRC on Feb 3, 2010
Recently, the ACLU of West Virginia has forgotten the Constitution and the rules of self-governance. For more check out wv4marriage.com.
show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NxYS4qSf_s
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
It seems to me that this argument receives similar status nowadays that the free state-slave state debacle raised in the first half of the 19th century, and we all know how that one ended. So how about this time, all of us non- homosexuals act maturely and responsibly give homosexuals their amendment. Black people got their amendment from a bunch of racists, and now it is time for gay people to get their amendment from a bunch of homophobes.
It's been over half a century since Kinsey wrote his book . Everyone knows that everyone is curious. Why are we still proceeding at a snail's pace with this whole thing? Here, I'll even write it out.
Amendment 28
Marriage shall be between a man and a woman , or between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman.
There. Was that so hard? Then when the next hurricane hits, all of the Christians can say it's a fetus, and all the atheists can rant about it in their blogs, and meanwhile all the gay people get happily married . The only real problem with this plan is the polygamist lobby, but we'll save that for the next amendment (provided the world does not end in 2012 ).
Democracy is based on majority rule. Now, there have been cases where a minority opinion has had to overcome a majority opinion. If the minority can show to the majority that their opinion is worthy, within the proper framework of the Constitution, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with any minority that would attempt to circumvent majority rule. By the same token, I do have a problem with any majority that refuses to consider the arguments made by a minority. The outcome may be 'no', but the minority must be allowed to make its case unless there is obvious legal reasons not to allow it.
According to the constitution the will of the majority rule is always to be enforced UNLESS it interferes with the rights of the minority!
This is why a bunch of racists can't mobilize and vote slavery back into law . It's why interracial marriages can't be voted on and outlawed. It's why you can't vote to ban Jews from practicing their religion . And it's what guarantees that minorities will always have a place in this country rather than being ran over and stripped of all dignity and human rights by those who feel they don't deserve the same rights and protections that they enjoy simply because they are different!
You wouldn't want to see what America would look like if the majority could impose it's will on minorities with a few votes! Interracial marriage would not exist, slavery would be voted back into law in some states, and people would be banned from practicing any faith other than Christianity!
Yet gay people have one civil right after another stripped from them every year! Gay people have had their rights to be parents taken away. They can be fired for no other reason than the fact that they are gay. And they've had their rights to marry taken away after a court granted that right. Some of these rights were taken away by voters, even though the constitution clearly states that's illegal !
If we continue down this path, what minority might come next? Where will it stop if the rights of the minority are not protected from the hateful will of the majority? Can you say "Germany"!?
Consider Prohibition. This was a measure to stop alcohol consumption that made it all the way thru congress , was voted on by a majority of the states, and became part of the Constitution. Regarding the measure itself, it can be argued that alcohol consumption can cause death. We are near a bar; there are police there at least once a week. Once we have had to shut down business due to goings-on at the bar. However, for the most part, the people that frequent the bar are congenial, nice, people. But Prohibition quite literally became the law of the land.
As soon as it was passed, legal efforts were started to overturn it. Some years later, the same legal process reversed the original decision, and that was added to the many amendments to the Constitution. So, in the end, using majority rule, the original decision was righted.
Consider civil rights . There were many marches. Inevitably, though, the president signed a bill that had been arrived at by majority consensus. True, it took a long time since Lincoln, but it did happen.
And there were some Hitlerish reminders along the way. The KKK (Nazi SS), the Watts Riots (Kristallnacht), and such. But neither the KKK nor the Riots ultimately caused the president to sign the bill. Majority rule did.
Now, if the majority is lied to, such as in Nazi Germany, and the majority believes the lie, then the concept of majority rule is not the problem. Rather, the believing of a lie is the problem. Remember also that Minority Rule could be just as oppresive.
So, make your case. But be aware that if your case is indeed just it will prevail, but it may take a while. In the meantime, riots don't help anybody's cause.