Tuesday, September 8, 2009 The Voice of the People

Image by inkeola via Flickr

I read a fascinating article today written by Ali Davis for www.365gay.com. In her blog she wrote, "...once you start legislating private matters for other people, your own privacy is pretty much fair game." This article and another article regarding the ethics violation investigation of the National Organization for Marriage got me to thinking about the true voice of the people.

When same-sex marriage became a viable issue marriage rights foes argued that the Massachusetts Circuit Court violated its constitutional limitations by legislating from the bench. Their argument was that laws regarding marriage and other civil rights are the domain of the State legislative body. They filed an appeal which went to the Massachusetts's State Supreme Court and we all know the outcome, the lower court's decision was upheld.

In California, the same thing pretty much happened via the court system. So what did the marriage foes do, they garnered enough signatures to warrant the Proposition 8 Amendment to the state's constitution. This in essence tied the hands of the state's court system. When the legality of Prop.8 went before the courts, the courts sided with the people's right to amend the constitution. What really flabbergasted me was the fact that the court, in essence, conceded that people have the right to enact an amendment to a constitution that is in direct violation of rights secured under the same constitution.

Filed on 05/18/08, the California Supreme Court wrote in their decision, "As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society." So how can the court reverse this decision by siding with the proponents of Proposition 8.

In Maine, the legislature passed a law that recognizes same-sex marriage. Immediately the National Organization for Marriage started a petition to have the constitution amended and abolishing the validity of the recent law. Enough signatures have been garnered and it now goes before the people.

In Iowa, the Iowa Supreme Court followed the 2008 California Supreme Court's decision and ruled that discrimination in marriage is unconstitutional. Again, the National Organization for Marriage is trying to garner enough signatures to change that state's constitution.

This now brings me to my initial question, what is the voice of the people. The Supreme Courts, whether state or national, were formed to keep the legislative and executive branch from making laws that violate the constitution. Through legal maneuvering, political action committees have been able to do an end run around the legal system. When legislatures, the body of government that is held accountable for creating laws, passed laws espousing equality, the same political action committees have claimed that said laws are not the voice of the people.

If our legislative branch is elected by the people to represent the people, then is it reasonable to say that they are the voice of the people? On the same token, if the constitutions of each state and the country are ratified and agreed upon by the people, then does not the Supreme Courts of each state and country speak for the people when they rule according to constitutional legality?

When the voice of the people speak out in favor of bigotry, who then has the power to override the people? According to the conservative Christian political action committees, no one. So is it safe to assume that the voice of the people can rule that unless a marriage produces an offspring it can not be counted as a marriage? Or how about, person's of different religions can not get married? (By the way, that is biblical according to Levitical law.)

This country has a history of showing that the voice of the majority is seldom in touch with the civil and economic rights of the minorities. It has taken court orders and legislative actions to bring people to treat each other in a more humane and equitable manner. Have we forgotten the civil rights struggles during the 60's? How about women's struggle to be treated as equals and not chattel? Women's right to vote and own property? Slavery? Everyone of these issues were fought against the will of the majority, and in most cases, against the will of the church.

Who speaks for you? Your conscience or your church. Let's hope this time around people will see what is morally right and what is pure bigoted propaganda parading under a religious banner.