One of the curious attributes of democracy is that the minority is always "wrong." Not morally wrong, mind you. Just on the wrong side of a political divide that can be as big as a mountain or as small as a single vote.
It's frustrating, to say the least - especially if you are convinced that you are morally right and yet politically powerless.
Nonetheless, moral absolutes can't be undone by elections, and political decisions can't be overturned by moral polemic. That's just a fact of life. Morality and politics, after all, are two separate spheres which only on rare occasion are in perfect alignment.
As a result, those of us who live under a system that employs the trappings of democracy have to agree to abide by outcomes that may disappoint us, distress us, or even injure us. The pro-life forces who want to see abortion made illegal are a classic case of that. They have fought, ever since Roe vs. Wade was declared the law of the land in 1973, to overturn legal protections for abortion, yet they have been by and large unsuccessful. Although these folks believe murder is being done in their name, they have thus had to accept the result with prayer and protest.
More recently, gay-rights advocates suffered a loss in California when voters there, in a much-publicized vote on Proposition 8, amended the state Constitution to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
California voters had already declared their support for heterosexual marriage and opposition to homosexual marriage in the year 2000. Proposition 22, which passed then with a 61-37 percent majority, revised state law to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That law had remained on the books until earlier this year when the California Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional.
Such court intervention can be quite frustrating (there's that word again) for people who don't think courts should be in the business of making law. But nonetheless, that is in fact what courts often do - whether they admit it or not. And whether or not you agree with the morality of gay marriage, the argument that a law is unconstitutional cannot easily be trumped once the high court has spoken. Indeed, as opponents of abortion have found out on the national scene, it is almost impossible to get the court to reverse itself once it has ruled on a constitutional issue.
On the other hand, there is no bar against the people of a jurisdiction following the prescribed procedure and changing their constitution to make clear what is and is not allowed under that ruling document. That's what the citizens of California did when a court ruled that gay marriage was indeed legal. In a few brief months, they were able to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would let voters say once and for all whether the state should recognize gay marriage. The voters decided on Nov. 4 that gay marriage should NOT be legal in California, and yet that strangely enough is not the end of the story.
Almost immediately, opponents of Proposition 8 announced that they would go to court again to get the constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional. For a number of reasons, they are considered to have a good chance of succeeding.
In the meantime, gay-rights advocates are protesting throughout California and nationwide over what they believe to be a denial of their civil rights by California - not to mention by the other 42 states that have constitutional bans or laws against same-sex marriage.
That kind of protest is certainly well within reason, as long as it is done peacefully and without violating other laws. But the question of overturning the will of the people through court intervention is not so reasonable. Here's why:
Elections are the cornerstone of our system of government, whether it is the democratic republic that elects representatives to make laws on our behalf or whether it is the direct democracy inherent in California's system of allowing the people to amend their own Constitution through a simple majority vote.
If elections are going to have credibility and integrity, they also need to have consequences. It is up to all of us to honor the results of our elections, even when we find them to be abhorrent. This is true whether we are talking about the election of a president or the will of the people being expressed on a constitutional issue.
As an example, there are a number of people who made the argument before the recent election that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen, and thus would be ineligible to be president of the United States. This argument was made publicly and forcefully, and yet the citizenry elected Obama by a fairly wide margin. Were these arguments to succeed in court now, after the election, and somehow forced the removal of Obama from office, it would have the effect of nullifying the clear choice of the people and might very well trigger riots as well. Almost no one would countenance such an outcome, especially if it were accomplished by a court instead of through the impeachment process established by the Constitution.
By the same token, it behooves the gay community to persevere in their cause without short-circuiting elections. They have every right to seek to change the law through legislative or constitutional changes, but they ought not to circumvent the plainly spoken will of the people by crying to the courts. Let's remember: Everything in our system, from the executive branch to the courts to the legislature itself, comes from the power of "we the people."
Government operates on a mandate from us, not the other way around. And if the system is used to thwart the people's will, then all hell will break loose - and that is something hopefully none of us wants to see.
. Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com
Woody
Maybe Obama's birth certificate is stapled to the President's military record. Find one, find both.
OPPRESSOR
That is how many of us felt when George W. Bush was elected. Maybe it is too bad that we didn't speak up after all the lies and death caused by that administration. As for Obama's birth certificate, there was tangible proof he was born in Hawaii and to those who wouldn't accept that answer, I ask them their thoughts about McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone? I agree with leaving the results of an election alone. The integrity of an election must remain intact so that in the future, those on the short end will heed and respect those results, though they may not like them. I think the Prop 8 argument is that there might have been a misrepresentation to the public of what it stood for, and that the Mormons church, ignored the "Church & State" rule, had lots of money and influence regarding the passage of this bill. If proven, they may lose their tax exempt status.
Freedom09
Hate to disagree with Frank, but if in fact Obama is not a natural born citizen, he cannot constitutionally be President. Now in all probability he was born in Hawaii [I would like to see a nice clean officially certified copy of the birth certificate though] and is a natural born citizen of the United States. Now if he was born outside the United States, it is not at all clear that he would be a natural born citizen. The fact that this issue was raised on the internet and ignored by the drive-by-media doesn't mean that the requirement is not valid if Obama isn't a natural born citizen. The people in California amended the state constitution by voting on Prop. 8. The vote for Obama doesn't amend the United States Constitution. But I sure wish Obama would produce that birth certificate right out of the office in Hawaii.
naturalresources
oppressor, so you believe that seven out of ten black voters were adversely influenced by the mormon church? They don't have any clear family values of their own? And as I recall, there was plenty of outcry from the left regarding Bush's every move and decision. And both of Obamas' parents are required to be U.S citizens if he was born outside the U.S. Clearly, both are not. The question is whether he was born in Hawaii or not. I too believe that churches should forfet their tax exempt status, especially if they are collecting money from parishioners and sending it to thwart our efforts in the MIddle East.
5thgenerationMT
Submit birth cert. if elected? I cannot remember this issue ever rising to the surface in the past. Subtle yet not so subtle racism? Go figure... If we remove Church from State , we would not have gay rights issues. Will never happen, so we struggle with divisiveness. We talk the talk yet have not reached the walking phase. Taxing churches whose "soul" purpose is maintaining a perpetual crawl is an appropriate step?
5thgenerationMT
Frank, define moral absolutes, please...
Rob123
Being raised a Catholic, I remember the first time I went to a Protestant Church, and being amazed as the whole hour was spent trying to understand one paragraph writen by Paul,; and a polite arguement continued out into the parking lot. I had the feeling that no one really 'got it', but they sure loved to argue.
realist
The whole gist of the thing is that the courts, that is the judges, should not be able to reverse the decisions of the majority. Their job should not be to decide if the constitution, or amendments to, are legal (unconstitutional) but to decide if one is following the rule/law set by the constitution. The personal leanings of the judges should not come in to play. Judge Malloy in Missoula is an example of one who makes decisions based on personal believe and leaves facts out of his decisions. Lawyers and judges have had a major hand in making a mess of this country.
MontanaTrace
I didn't vote for O and fear he will take a hard left but would rather see that than what will happen in the streets if O is found not to be born in the US and is stripped of becoming President. His groupees are not going to be understanding. My guess is he wasn't or it can't be proved that he was and the higher ups are trying to figure way to deal with this volatile situation. Why wasn't this settled before nomination? More of his BS.
whiterabbit
The devil sure is working overtime brainwashing the school children that Obonga will cure all societies problems and towards normalizing the act of two men sharing fecal matter, calling it wholesome and worthy of the label "marriage". Jews behind all this evil? Well, look who runs the media- Gerald Levin, Bob Eiger, Edgar Bronfman, Sr, Edgar Bronfman, Jr, Sumner Redstone, Dennis Dammerman, Peter Chernin. Who does every politician in DC have to kiss the boot of to stay in office- AIPAC. Who gets free USA tax monies without disclosure to Congress- Israel, Goldman Sachs.. You folks seeing a pattern here or are you just going to continue to call some people noticing the evil- racists. Germans didn't kick them out in the day because they were nice boys, eh?
Rob123
Lucky777: Lets assume for a moment that your not really an ugly little rascist pig, but rather a confused kraut trying to justify your ass kicking in WW2. If Hitler had limited his fear mongering to Gypsies, the Insane, and those with Birth Defects, and left the Jews out of his conspiracy theory, then Germany most likely would have had the Atomic Bomb before the U.S. What do you think about that, you jerk?