Szandor Blestman dot com

A viewpoint free from corporate influence

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home

Proposition 8 and Democracy

E-mail Print PDF

The gay marriage debate is playing out in California. There, the majority of people have spoken. They don't believe that gay people should be allowed to be married. They think that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. They think that the state should not be allowed to sanction any other kind of union. I think this is a great example of why our founding fathers had such disdain for democracy. This is a great example of how the democratic process can lead to tyranny or mob rule. This is a great example of the difference between a republic and a democracy, why our founders decided to make this nation a republic, and why even republics fail miserably when it comes to representing the masses.


Let me say for the record that I couldn't care less whether two males, two females, or groups of people either mixed or not want to marry. It's none of my business, just like who I want to marry or whether or not anyone even ever wants to marry me is none of anyone else's business. Better than that, it is not the state's business. What does the state care who I am living with? I don't need permission from the state to fall in love with someone, or to make vows to them in front of our families, friends and/or the god of our choice. But the state has managed to force itself into the most intimate aspects of our lives and most of us simply allow it to take control. They whimper and cry one way or another, either that they are "unable" to marry and obtain all the goodies the state grants those unions, or that their sensibilities have been offended. This is nothing more than a collectivist scheme, in my opinion. It is yet another brilliant way to pit one group against another.

The answer, of course, is to get the state completely out of the marriage business. Let the churches decide who they will marry. Let the marketplace determine how marriages will be conducted. Let individuals decide for themselves how they want to go about making vows of love and entering into life partnerships with others. There is no reason for a coercive institution to steal money from all and then exercise prejudice against one group in favor of another. There is no reason to get people all riled up because government is always going to be unfair to one group or another.

But that's not what we have in this nation of ours. We don't have free and independent people simply running their lives as they see fit. We have a bunch of serfs running around asking their master's permission to do the simplest of tasks. We have a bunch of "citizens" who have become so dependent on government mandates that they can't make any decisions for themselves without first checking to see if they would be violating some code or statute. If I was a gay man in love with another man, I certainly wouldn't care what the state had to say about it. If I wanted to marry, I'd draw up a contract, find someone or some church who could do the ceremony, and then move on with my life. What should I care who else would recognize the marriage? As long as it was recognized between myself and my partner, that should be all that matters.

Yet people seem to want the majority to go along with them. They seem to want everyone to think and act as they do. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we are all in the minority at some time or another. We all have ideas and thoughts and little quirks that others would think are strange or abnormal. There is a reason we should realize that if we want to live free, we need to let others live free. When you give someone the power to criminalize the activities of others that cause no harm to anyone else, eventually they are going to criminalize a victimless activity that you want to engage in. That's why the rights of the smallest minority, the individual, need to be honored.

There is a morality issue here. Some may think I'm talking about the act of having sexual relations with a member of the same sex. Some have claimed that homosexuality is immoral because it's an affront to God. They claim that on the authority of some old tome written thousands of years ago by fallible men. That is not what I'm talking about. If sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex is an affront to God, then let God take care of it. He is, after all, the supreme, all powerful being. He has no need for your interdiction. He and those involved with the activity can sort things out at the appropriate time. If you want to intercede in the lives of those people and force them to stop having sex with each other and to act like a "normal" heterosexual, then likely it is because their activities are an affront to you personally and have nothing to do with God. I won't even go into the psychological implications of such desires.

In the end, whatever decision is made, Whether the courts or the people prevail, there are going to be people who feel they are losers. In a society where the state is left out of marriage, there would be no goodies, no privileges, for those who were married. There would simply be the respect for individual rights. No one would be looking into the personal lives of others where it didn't affect them personally. No one would care what others did in their personal lives as long as no harm was being done to others. In a world where the state is not involved in marriage, everyone wins. The contracts would be drawn up between two (or more) people and those people would be expected to honor their contract with each other. It would be the business of those people, and no one else. This is what a free society would teach us all. This is not the lesson we have learned from the failed experiment in democracy known as proposition 8.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

 

Comments (4)
  • Channon  - Proposition 8 and Democracy
    avatar

    You don't know how long I've waited to hear someone else say this!! What is the state doing in the marriage business to start with?????!!!! This was and always has been the domain of the churches and the individuals themselves. What right does the state have in saying who can and can't marry. I'm far from a supporter of the homosexual lifestyle, but I also love freedom and choose to respect people's rights to mind their own affairs without government interference.

    And once again you've nailed it when you discuss democracy as you do. It is amazing at how many people think this nation is a democracy. It's not. It's a republic. In a democracy, people can change the laws at a whim, and there are no protections for minorities, and no built in protections for anyone. Everything is negotiable. If all the purple eyed people in the nation were a majority, and said all the pink eyed people should be thrown into the river and voted it into law...hey, the majority rule.

    In a republic such as ours, the Founding Fathers forsaw that problems could arise in a pure democracy. (they'd done their homework and took lessons from history) and therefore decided to make us a republic. In a republic, some items are set in stone and are not to be voted on, no matter what the majority say or think. The first ten amendments were designed to protect our freedoms and were supposed to be non-negotiable--and if our Congress and the Courts and the Executive branch all took their oaths of office seriously, none of those protections would now be in such jeopardy or so effectively undercut.

    I'm just praying we can continue the trend that I have seen of late of some serious contenders for public office who actually believe in our Constitution, and are not out to see how much they can bend, twist or contort it to suit their own power and greed motivated career plans.

  • Channon  - re: Proposition 8 and Democracy
    avatar
    Channon wrote:
    You don't know how long I've waited to hear someone else say this!! What is the state doing in the marriage business to start with?????!!!! This was and always has been the domain of the churches and the individuals themselves. What right does the state have in saying who can and can't marry. I'm far from a supporter of the homosexual lifestyle, but I also love freedom and choose to respect people's rights to mind their own affairs without government interference.

    And once again you've nailed it when you discuss democracy as you do. It is amazing at how many people think this nation is a democracy. It's not. It's a republic. In a democracy, people can change the laws at a whim, and there are no protections for minorities, and no built in protections for anyone. Everything is negotiable. If all the purple eyed people in the nation were a majority, and said all the pink eyed people should be thrown into the river and voted it into law...hey, the majority rule.

    In a republic such as ours, the Founding Fathers forsaw that problems could arise in a pure democracy. (they'd done their homework and took lessons from history) and therefore decided to make us a republic. In a republic, some items are set in stone and are not to be voted on, no matter what the majority say or think. The first ten amendments were designed to protect our freedoms and were supposed to be non-negotiable--and if our Congress and the Courts and the Executive branch all took their oaths of office seriously, none of those protections would now be in such jeopardy or so effectively undercut.

    I'm just praying we can continue the trend that I have seen of late of some serious contenders for public office who actually believe in our Constitution, and are not out to see how much they can bend, twist or contort it to suit their own power and greed motivated career plans.
  • Channon
    avatar

    CONTINUATION OF WHAT GOT CUT OFF IN THE PREVIOUS ENTRY:

    In a republic such as ours, the Founding Fathers forsaw that problems could arise in a pure democracy. (they'd done their homework and took lessons from history) and therefore decided to make us a republic. In a republic, some items are set in stone and are not to be voted on, no matter what the majority say or think. The first ten amendments were designed to protect our freedoms and were supposed to be non-negotiable--and if our Congress and the Courts and the Executive branch all took their oaths of office seriously, none of those protections would now be in such jeopardy or so effectively undercut.

    I'm just praying we can continue the trend that I have seen of late of some serious contenders for public office who actually believe in our Constitution, and are not out to see how much they can bend, twist or contort it to suit their own power and greed motivated career plans. [/quote]

  • sblestman
    avatar

    Exactly the point I was trying to make. The more people who understand that we need to stop telling others how to live in order for us all to be free, the more likely it becomes that one day we will achieve true liberty for ourselves and our progeny.

Write comment
Your Contact Details:
Gravatar enabled
Comment:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img]   
:D:angry::angry-red::evil::idea::love::x:no-comments::ooo::pirate::?::(
:sleep::););)):0
Security
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.
Last Updated on Saturday, 21 August 2010 09:41  

Advertisement

Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner