There are some folks in this country who claim to believe that the US Constitution was divinely inspired. Some of these same people also argue that, since the voters in California passed Prop 8, that the amendment to the California constitution should not be overturned by judicial review. Since the only basis a federal court could have for overturning the referendum result would be that it violates the US Constitution, it becomes clear that either there is a serious deficiency in the civics education these people have received, or that they are insincere when they claim divine inspiration of, and love for, the Constitution.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who once said that "democracy is two wolves and a sheep taking a vote on what's for dinner." One of the chief arguments against ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 was that government would usurp authority beyond what was intended by the framers. Many states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent on the first Congress enacting a Bill of Rights to ensure that certain basic rights could not be legislated out of existence, and preventing the "majority" from running rough shod over and oppress minorities.
The result was the Bill or Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. The subsequent Civil War and its aftermath resulted in the addition of more amendments spelling out specific rights that the federal government could not take from the individual, and also made the rights specified in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments binding on the states. Three of these specific rights have bearing on the discussion of Prop 8. They are the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, and the Equal Treatment clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These are rights clearly and firmly part of the US Constitution revered by the folks I was talking about earlier.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one group that fits the description, and it offers a wonderful analogy argument in opposition to the argument they present. The LDS represent about 2% of California's population, far from the majority they enjoy in Utah. What would happen if the voters in California passed a referendum amending the California constitution that invalidated Mormon temple marriages or that prohibited members of the LDS Church from the legal standing of marriage and denied them the legal benefits of marriage? Would the LDS faithful that argue that Prop. 8 should stand because the voters passed it also agree to such an amendment? Or would the LDS faithful argue that the amendment violated the Establishment clause, the Free Exercise clause and the Equal Treatment clause of the US Constitution?
Let us take this analogy a step further, and hold a majority vote on whether or not Mormonism can be practiced in the the United States. Here is what I think would happen: All of the Mormons would turn out to vote against the measure. All of the Christians who think Mormons are not Christians, all of the non-Mormon Christians that want to establish the United States as a "Christian nation," and all of the folks who think Mormonism is evil would turn out to vote in favor. The rest of the country would probably stay home out of apathy. There are 16,000,000 Southern Baptists alone in the United States, whereas the Mormons only number about 13,000,000 world wide. Were it not for the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, Mormonism would be extinguished in this country.
Then, perhaps, some leader in some other denomination, could stand in the pulpit and tell all of these newly disestablished Mormons that their beliefs are a form of mental illness that can be cured. All they would have to do is undergo a "deprogramming" program (aka brainwashing) developed by this established religion.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who once said that "democracy is two wolves and a sheep taking a vote on what's for dinner." One of the chief arguments against ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 was that government would usurp authority beyond what was intended by the framers. Many states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent on the first Congress enacting a Bill of Rights to ensure that certain basic rights could not be legislated out of existence, and preventing the "majority" from running rough shod over and oppress minorities.
The result was the Bill or Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. The subsequent Civil War and its aftermath resulted in the addition of more amendments spelling out specific rights that the federal government could not take from the individual, and also made the rights specified in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments binding on the states. Three of these specific rights have bearing on the discussion of Prop 8. They are the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, and the Equal Treatment clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These are rights clearly and firmly part of the US Constitution revered by the folks I was talking about earlier.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one group that fits the description, and it offers a wonderful analogy argument in opposition to the argument they present. The LDS represent about 2% of California's population, far from the majority they enjoy in Utah. What would happen if the voters in California passed a referendum amending the California constitution that invalidated Mormon temple marriages or that prohibited members of the LDS Church from the legal standing of marriage and denied them the legal benefits of marriage? Would the LDS faithful that argue that Prop. 8 should stand because the voters passed it also agree to such an amendment? Or would the LDS faithful argue that the amendment violated the Establishment clause, the Free Exercise clause and the Equal Treatment clause of the US Constitution?
Let us take this analogy a step further, and hold a majority vote on whether or not Mormonism can be practiced in the the United States. Here is what I think would happen: All of the Mormons would turn out to vote against the measure. All of the Christians who think Mormons are not Christians, all of the non-Mormon Christians that want to establish the United States as a "Christian nation," and all of the folks who think Mormonism is evil would turn out to vote in favor. The rest of the country would probably stay home out of apathy. There are 16,000,000 Southern Baptists alone in the United States, whereas the Mormons only number about 13,000,000 world wide. Were it not for the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, Mormonism would be extinguished in this country.
Then, perhaps, some leader in some other denomination, could stand in the pulpit and tell all of these newly disestablished Mormons that their beliefs are a form of mental illness that can be cured. All they would have to do is undergo a "deprogramming" program (aka brainwashing) developed by this established religion.
Comments