Has Democracy Taken a Knife in the Back?

OK. So many of you have heard about all the hubbub in California regarding the same-sex marriage deal. Here's a synopsis as I have followed it in the news:


1. The State Legislature passed a bill allowing same sex couples to get married.

2. People got pissed and raised hell.

3. The State held a referendum putting the power in the people's hands to say whether they did or did not want to allow gay marriage.

4. Gay marriage was banned based on the vote of the people.

5. People got pissed and raised hell.

6. The State Supreme Court reviewed the issue and upheld the vote.

7. People got pissed and raised hell.


Now, I'm not about to start talking about Constitutional rights. I'm not gonna talk about homosexuality. I'm gonna talk about democracy and marriage. Here, we have an issue where democracy was seen in it's purest form. Everybody got a vote on the issue, they added up the votes and one side won. Isn't that supposed to be the end of the debate?

I guess not...

Folks, please understand that democracy means that you win some and you lose some. That's the price you pay for living in a society where everybody gets a vote. Sometimes you're on the winning team, sometimes you aren't. In order for this society to work, we have to learn how to compromise with each other. (Doesn't this sound like kindergarten all over again???)

But to address the issue of same-sex marriage itself: My vote would be to call it a "civil union". Am I splitting hairs? Maybe. But I believe that "marriage" is a religious institution between a man and a woman. I know, I know..."But you have to get a maarriage license from the government." (Whiny, freakin liberals...) That's a formality that came from laws against polygamy and issues of property rights upon the death of one's spouse. Besides, you know the government will find a way to make you pay for any and everything it can.

It's true, some religions allow same-sex marriage. But those folks are in the vast minority. The majority of the people in this country of Jewish, Islamic and Christian faiths are against homosexuality.

"So democracy just allows the majority to impose their sense of morality on everybody else?" No, democracy allows every citizen a vote. Some people don't equate legal issues and moral issues. There are some folks who really don't give 2 bits about gays getting hitched even though they think it's wrong. We have more important things to do than worry about who YOU are having sex with. (Like who WE are having sex with.) For all the people who think homosexuality is wrong, I don't see too many movements to stop people of the same sex from HAVING SEX. There is, however, a movement to protect what many feel is the sanctity of the institution of marriage. (Although the entertainment industry offers us so many opportunities to taint it.)

So all you folks who jumped up on your soap box, wagged your finger and spit every time you mentioned the outcome of this case...GET OVER YOURSELF!!! Maybe you don't like the outcome. Think about it this way, it's your tax dollars at work, defending the cause of democracy. (And holding back the wrath of God from smiting us with His anger for allowing this abomination. I kid, I kid...)

Correction: It has been brought to my attention that the Supreme Court of Cali had originally said that denying gay couples the right to marry was unconstitutional. Here is my response to that and an old friend's argument that this is similar to a vote that would (hypothetically) overturn Brown v Board of Education.

The rights of an individual are derived from the society they live in. If that society, through a democratic process (which we claim to be the best of all governing systems), decides that certain things are not to be, how can we (or the court, for that matter) argue with that? Leave morality to the side. Being born black is a proven biological issue. Can you find ANY scientist to say DEFINITIVELY prove that being gay is a product of biology? If not, then the analogy to Brown v Board of Education is faulty in that it compares something innate to something that is (arguably) a lifestyle choice. Also, since there was no definitive rule on same-sex marriage PRIOR to that vote, yeah...the court had to say that denying them marriage rights was unconstitutional. There was no precedent to say marriage was strictly a man-woman thing. The popular vote, however, changed that.