Homosexual Revolution Notwithstanding Democracy
February 22, 2009
Tonight we also witnessed an Academy Award given to the writer of the screenplay Milk. That screenwriter told of how his parents moved him away from a conservative Mormon environment where he could learn to accept “who he is”. While there are plenty of philosophical problems associated with someone claiming “it’s who I am” (about anything), which I won’t go into, I found it interesting that he promised all the homosexuals out there that the marriage license would soon be extended to homosexual “marriages” from a federal level. I’m guessing that the screenwriter is no lawyer, but he may suspect that the U.S. Congress is largely powerless to regulate state marriage laws (or at least it is supposed to be). However, the federal judges, none of whom are elected, have been known to strike down state laws by declaring them unconstitutional, whether or not there is any sound reasoning or any text in the Constitution to support such a decision.
The screenwriter reveals an interesting attitude: we just lost an election, but no matter, we’ll run to the courts to fix it. And if we lose in the state courts, we’ll go to the federal ones. And as soon as we get that precedential decision we’re looking for, it won’t matter what people vote for, because judges (by co-opting the constitution) trump democracy (and perhaps can trump the citizens’ attempt to amend their own constitution).
Of course, setting aside the justice or injustice of the homosexual movement, any democratic process can produce unjust laws. And yes, it would be nice to have all of those unjust laws overturned by some other governmental entity. However, that other body can likewise produce unjust decisions. So, in the end, we must recognize that someone will have the last word, and that person or group may produce unjust laws.
Thus, the question becomes who should make that last and final decision. As to the federal level, should it be the unelected Federal Judiciary or a democratically accountable Congress and President? Of course, the homosexual screenwriter may place tremendous hope in Congress and the President (and that is probably a justified hope), and he may be unaware that the Congress and President are generally not supposed to dictate state laws. Even so, as of now, it would appear that the California state courts will be the next arena for this debate, regardless of the express will of the people in the state of California. And if those judges decide that the people of the state of California cannot amend their own state constitution to reflect their will against homosexual marriage, when can we stop calling ourselves a democracy?