Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Tyranny of the Minority
I have specifically avoided the "Homosexual Marriage" debate in my writings on this and the Sons of the Republic blog because, in my mind, there is no debate. Marriage is an institution ordained by God as the union between one man and one woman.
Period. End of debate. Next subject please.
Adding to my opinion on the subject were 61% of the voters in California who, in 2000 approved Proposition 22 which reaffirmed the aforementioned definition, minus the "ordained by God" phrase. In 2004, 13 states amended their constitutions to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Enter San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer. Despite all evidence and precedent to the contrary, he ruled that California's ban on "Gay" marriage is unconstitutional. He is a committee of one who somehow decided he has the right to invalidate an entire belief system just on his say so.
This, dear reader, is what we call the Tyranny of the Minority. This minority is small, but very vocal. They are very easily offended. Jada Pinkett Smith can't even make this statement without rankling some feathers at Harvard:
Women, you can have it all -- a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas. Be open.The Harvard Crimson reported that some members of the Harvard Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance found these remarks to be "offensive" and "extremely heteronormative". Go figure.
Kramer cited the historic Brown vs. Board of Education ruling that racially integrated the public school system. Supporters also cited the 1948 law legalizing interracial marriage.
"Gay" Marriage is not a civil rights issue. It is not akin to racial equality. This issue is about a very small percentage (2-5%) of the population demanding that the rest of the country sanction their domestic arrangement. Judge Kramer finds "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples. 13 states and 61% of California's population disagree with him.
No doubt this case will eventually find its way to the SCOTUS. Ask yourself now, just how important is the judicial nomination process?
For the record, I am not one who cares to trifle in what goes on behind the closed doors of my neighbors. I do not care what they do, nor whom they do it with. I do, however, draw the line at redefining the institution of marriage, one with over 6,000 years of historical, religious, and legislative precedent simply on the whim of a manufactured pop culture whim.
Here endeth the lesson.