In my opinion, the court had solid constitutional basis to do this, if one wishes to play the state government legal game. However, although the end of equal marriage rights should be a clear win, the fact of the matter is that this decision was made by a small group of judges in an oligarchic fashion, usurping the will of the voters (who voted by a ballot measure - that's direct democracy - to deny gays the right to marry). Of course, I don't believe that the majority should be allowed to exercise tyranny on the minority, but better vulgar democracy than oligarchy, right? I'm inclined to shrug it off, but one must wonder if this encourages courts to defy the will of the people more often. (Then again, if the will of the people is to deny a minority its right to equal liberty, then maybe it deserves to be defied.) Maybe I'm just worrying too much? A victory for gay rights is a victory for gay rights, right?*The photograph pictured was taken by Eric Rolph and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks, buddy.
2 comments:
While it doesn't directly resolve the dilemma, it is important to keep in mind that scale of the democracy is just as important as other institutional parameters (IMHO, it might be the most important).
Direct democracy involving the entire world population is a recipe for massive rights violations. Direct democracy in a small town, much less so (though obviously no guarantee against them).
Direct democracy at the federal U.S. level is a recipe for fairly large rights violations (note the slavery provisions in the Constitution). Direct democracy at the large state level (like CA) only slightly less so. Direct democracy by municipality is probably a pretty good goal. When you personally know the person (or their family, or a friend, etc.) you are going to screw through democratic state action, it is much harder to justify it to yourself morally. There are other reasons that direct democracy is more in tune with liberty at smaller scales, as well.
I definitely agree. Direct democracy on a large scale, especially when people are coerced into accepting the system, is terrible. Small-scale voluntary, participatory/direct democracy should be the goal. I just wonder if some sort of oligarchic krytocracy moves us further away from our goal. I would think that the way to achieve small-scale democracy is not through the state political process, though, so it doesn't worry me too much. Just something to think about.
Post a Comment