In The Loop: Courts need to strike down Proposition 8
On Nov. 4, Californians voted to add an amendment to the California State Constitution that will effectively write discrimination into law. Now the verdict is being appealed in the courts, much to the enragement of those who lobbied on behalf of the discrimination.
The Yes on 8 crowd is claiming foul play that the courts have no right to intervene in the situation since the will of the people has spoken. They say that it would be at the least unfair, at the most immoral to revoke the decision.
But these claims that have been lobbed so fiercely don’t hold water when subjected to careful scrutiny. When one takes a look back in history, it is easily seen that it would fall within the standard of moral American values for the court to revoke the decision.
The Founding Fathers hated the thought of the tyranny of the majority, which for our purposes, is when the majority enforces a standard, whether it is a law or proposition, which infringes upon the rights of a minority. Our Founding Fathers safeguarded against it as strictly as they saw fit.
Tyranny of the majority, for our purposes, is when a majority enforces a standard, whether it is a law or proposition, that infringes upon the rights of a minority. And thus this tyranny fell along the same lines of mob rule, a thing that is generally frowned upon.
If the court system were to knock down the proposition, they would not be stepping over the line, overly exerting their power, but fulfilling their duties.
The Fourteenth Amendment demands “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
When the right or privilege to marriage is denied to a group of people, it is therefore evident rights of that group is being invaded upon.
And in the end, if the Supreme Court makes the right decision, the decision to strike down Proposition 8, it would open the door to eliminate certain federal acts that contradict the Fourteenth Amendment rights of homosexual individuals.
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act makes it so that only one man and one woman combined in a civil union or marriage would be able to be recognized by federal bureaus and agencies, meaning only they can get the benefit of those federal agencies.
With all of the information put in place, it is obvious that the claim that it would be immoral for the courts strike down the proposition is ridiculous; it would be a refusal to commit to their duty to uphold the rights and privileges of all if they were to uphold the proposition.
It would be prudent for the entire Yes on 8 crowd to stop complaining about how their voices are being stifled by courts overreaching their boundaries.
In making these arguments, they are arguing against pure American principles.