Screw What the People Want

Yesterday, in his decision to strike down a 2008 law that was overwhelmingly approved by California voters, one man - a judge - has basically declared that a society no longer has the right to decide what it deems acceptable and unacceptable.

Forget for a moment that the law was about gay marriage. If it had been a law outlawing the picking of noses in public places and the public accepted the law, then that should be taken as "the will of the people." We, as citizens, have every right to determine what we will and will not stand for in our society. Take slavery, for instance. When the country was founded slavery was legal. We had a very bloody referendum (in part) on slavery in the civil war. The war was won by the north, and the will of the victors prevailed and slavery was abolished. Did everyone agree with that decision? No. Almost half the United States didn't agree, but they were defeated. And the course of our society was established and made clear - we will no longer tolerate slavery.

But fast forward to 2010. In 2008, a proposition was passed by a majority in California 52.24% to 47.76% saying that the people of California did not approve of gay marriage and that they wanted to define - at least in California - marriage as being between one man and one woman. And yet the will of the people and the very right of the people to set the course of their society was challenged in court. And yesterday's ruling effectively nullifies a legal election - one of the very facets of a free society. Essentially, it's one man saying he knows better than more than seven million citizens.

And that's wrong. Especially when you consider that the judge in the case is one of the few openly gay federal judges and is clearly biased on the issue.

And let's not forget that Proposition 8 was in direct response to and overturned a State Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, the argument that the pro-gay marriage crowd is using is that they are being unfairly discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. They say they are guaranteed by the US Constitution the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Let's examine that for a moment.

Are they being denied life? No. Are they being stoned to death when they announce to the public that they're gay? Of course not.

Are they being denied liberty? Not really. No one is telling them that they can't be gay. Society is telling them that it only recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman. And one man and one woman. Accordingly, society doesn't approve of polygamy. It's society's right to choose.

Are they being denied their pursuit of happiness? Well, that depends on the definition of "happiness," doesn't it, and more specifically, what the Founding Fathers meant by it in the Declaration of Independence. I can't say it any better than Charles Colson:

Ask most people what happiness means, and they will talk about feeling good, or about things that give them pleasure. This is especially unfortunate here in America, since “happiness” is an essential concept in our nation’s founding. We all know the famous words of the Declaration of Independence: that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among these the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Well, this does not mean that humans are endowed with the right to feel good, or to act in a way that pleases them. Robbing a bank may make thieves feel happy, but to claim the right to pursue that line of work would be absurd. Happiness is not self-gratification.

So what, then, does happiness mean? Our founding fathers understood the pursuit of happiness to mean the pursuit of a virtuous life. This concept of happiness comes from the Greek word eudaimonia—which refers to a life well-lived, a life rooted in truth. That is what happiness means, and that is what every man and woman has an inalienable right to pursue—a virtuous life.

But I guess for me, it comes down to this: people shouldn't receive special rights or privileges for the way they choose to have sex. We don't give pedophiles the right to marry children. We don't give zoophiles the right to marry animals. And we don't give robosexuals the right to marry robots. I'm not kidding - look it up.

There have certainly almost always been homosexuals. And I'm not arguing for or against that. What I'm saying is that we, as a nation, as a state, as a community and as a society have every right to choose what we will and will not stand for. And for the government to come along and tell us to sit down, shut up and that we're wrong is unacceptable. On any issue.