Here is my response to a comment from a blog: The blog - Irony, from http://reputo-quod-sentio.blogspot.com/ (Feel free to comment on his, but please don't bombard him with insults and say you found his blog because of me).
I cannot help but find some amusement at the reaction among liberals at California's ban on gay marriage. They are collectively outraged! I find it ironic that a group that champions democracy - majority (mob) rule - suddenly doesn't like it very much when the majority disagrees with them. This is the danger our Founding Fathers saw in democracy - in a democracy the rights of a minority can be 'legally' denied with no limit on how far those restrictions can go. What is sad is that, rather than realize that the only legitimate function of government is to protect rights that already exist and not to grant rights at its discretion and begin to demand such a government, these people will seek to subvert the very form of government they champion using the courts. They must do this because if they acknowledge that their rights do not come from the government but are, in fact, inherent in being a rational, volitional human being, it undermines their belief that a government has the authority to create unnatural rights such as housing, health care, education, etc. ============================================================ My response - I'm not sure how you define "Liberals", but I consider myself one. I highly doubt many people of a progressive or liberal nature would ever champion mob rule!! That is completely contradictory to the nature of progressive issues as I understand them. If anything, Libertarians tend to be of the "51%" mindset, wherein the majority speaks and the majority rules, which silences or marginalizes the minority. This is the view espoused by columnists such as Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine and Steve Chapman, both of whom are reliably libertarian leaning. I agree that the Founding Fathers did not intend for a true democracy to flourish and that's why we have a democratic republic. Of course, most folks use 'democracy' as the colloquial shorthand to describe the American system of gov't. Using the courts is not 'subverting' our form of gov't; the courts exist partly for this reason. That's why we have 3 branches, the legislative & executive are not the end-all-be-all. Do you think we should have put civil rights for Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, women, etc. up to a majority vote in the day & age when those struggles were going on? Lastly, I don't find anything unnatural about the rights you describe - a roof over one's head (housing), education, health care, the pursuit of happiness - that was enumerated in the Declaration of Independence - and a form of happiness is certainly MARRIAGE. How to obtain those rights and to what degree they should be provided is up for debate. Those are all at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and are quite necessary for a rational, volitional human being to function. Our road-building, police protection, and fire protection are already socialized, extending it to health care is not much of a stretch. The entire postal service would be a better candidate for complete privatization instead of healthcare. Equating profits with lack of treatment as the insurance companies have done is one of the most immoral things about capitalist healthcare, and you don't have to watch "Sicko" to realize that! But let me get back to my point, which was prop. 8 and gay marriage. It's immoral and unethical - and eventually will be illegal - to deny rights for homosexuals given (or inherent) for heterosexual people. To deny those rights for a person's quality that he/she is born with, much like skin color, race, gender, etc - all of which are protected against federal discrimination is immoral and unethical. Calling them 'civil unions' instead of marriage just creates a Separate But Equal position, and we all know how well that turned out in the early 20th century! I'm not sure if you're coming from a religious background as I'm definitely not, but what flabbergasts & bewilders me about the whole opposition to gay rights is confusing what is legal & moral vs. whether religions will be "forced" to accept homosexuals and conduct gay marriages. Of course churches/mosques/temples won't be coerced to do that; it wouldn't hold up to a legal challenge. All homosexuals want is equal protection and equal rights under the law, the same that heteros have. And I'm very fortunate for those rights & protections, but it's despicable that my gay friends don't share in them. ~JP --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
