Quote:
|
Reason No 1. Such logic could lead us to conclude that so long as a majority of the population wanted to do something horrific like bring back slavery, invade Canada or take the vote away from left handed people, it would be a good thing. Clearly however, it wouldn't be a good thing for these things to happen, it would be very bad, and in fact gratuitous thing.
|
Bringing back slavery would violate the equal protection amendment of the constitution. It would also violate the 5th amendment by depriving someone of life, liberty or property without due process. Furthermore this is a spurious arguement, because it would never get past the courts.
Quote:
|
Reason No 2. If the majority of people are wrong, does this mean we ought to follow their will anyway? For instance, if 88% of Americans thought blue eyes were a sign of insanity, ought we therefore condemn all blue eyed people to insane asylums? No.
|
Again, no due process, and a opinion is vastly different from a fact. There are no such similar facts with regards to gay marriage.
Also, the assertion could be disproved by clinical testing for mental health, making it more a matter of education.
Reason No 3. Why is it that any group, even a majority, is able to make decisions which affect another. By this I mean, why is it that heterosexual people are able to say 'Gay people shouldn't be able to marry.' I mean, if gay people do marry, how does this hurt heterosexual people at all? This would be like Australians deciding New Zealanders aren't allowed to blow their noses after 5pm. Thus even if the majority decide they don't like gay marriage, it's got nothing to do with them. I don't like strawberry ice cream, I'd go as far to say that the majority of people don't like strawberry icecream, but if people eat strawberry icecream, what am I gonna do about it? Naught.
There are several tracks I can take with this. 1. That gay marriage is destructive to the family, which has been the basic operating unit of society since the mud hut and cave days. The government has a vested interest in protecting certain societal norms in the interest of public welfare. 2. There are those of us who think homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. It is not a great stretch to see why such people would also view homosexual marriage as wrong. 3. Do we really want to create a new set of "rights"? Right now, any man and any woman can marry each other, with respect to the prohibitions on incestious relationships and polygamy. Is it wise to change that just because a few people don't like the way the law is currently written? If we do so, then a precedent is set. Precedent is an important part of law and carries a lot of weight with courts. This decision would then be used as leverage to get other laws passed. It is the classic slippery slope theory. If laws are based on ever shifting public opinion, then there is no rule of law, in fact, it is based on mob rule.
To often when the wishes of the majority of the population are brought up, people forget that there is a Constitution with which to frame these desires. Some things will never happen, no matter how much some people may desire them; the establishment of an official state religion for example. It is this framework that ideally stands between us and the before mentioned mob rule. It is not my intention to lecture on US civics, but simply to add more context to what I have previously stated.