In my “Why The Marriage Amendment Is A Bad Idea” post, I note that using the full weight and power of government to define marriage is noxious, if you believe in limited government.
Of course, the DFL side fully believes in using the full weight and power of government for everything; they’d vacate the Rights of Man to stop bullying (of gay kids, anyway); they’d repeal the Bill of Rights to ensure automatic social-service budget increases; if they could sic the SEALs, the CIA and Chuck Norris on opponents of gay marriage, they would.
Of course, the “power of government” they prefer is the judiciary. And Minnesota DFLers are second to nobody in their use of the imperial judiciary to force compliance with their policy goals.
So even if you think that government has no place telling people who or how to marry – and as I’ve written over and over, there’s a respectable libertarian case to be made against a Marriage Amendment – there are two very good reasons to refer this issue to the voters for inclusion (or rejection) in the State Constitution.
It’s Just Like Shakespeare Said, All Them Peckerheads Oughtta Be Dead (And Before Andy Birkey Or Eva Young Has A Cow, I’m Referring To Lawyers): Actually, not just this issue; indeed, it could be any socially divisive issue that’s been enacted as policy by weasel lawyers and party-fed judges, from Roe V. Wade to John Finley’s judicial sniping at the Minnesota Personal Protection Act to the definition of marriage.
Any issue that drives these issue to a referendum that can withstand trivial, pressure-group driven legal challenges is a good thing. And not just for the “winner” of the case. Because…
Special Interests Need To Get Ready For Prime Time, Or Shut Their Vacuous Glitter-Flinging Pieholes: As I’ve written in the past, I’m not unsympathetic with gay marriage advocates; I’d see a reason to meet them halfway (and, while I’m at it, never participate in the civil version of marriage ever again on basic principle, sticking with purely church-based ceremonies and eschewing the state license in the unlikely event I ever marry again). But in turn I have found the arguments of gay-marriage proponents to be extremely illogical, unconvincing and frequently childish.
I was downright depressed to watch the people on TV from the Gay Rights rally a few weeks ago. A woman – apparently a lesbian who seeks to marry, well, another lesbian, and who has gotten air time on several TV news segments on the subject – when asked why she supported Gay Marriage, replied “we deserve it”. Not once, but several times, on different newscasts.
And I deserve a foot massage from Scarlett Johannson. But that feeling of entitlement is not a reason. Still, it’s no worse than the arguments of most Gay Marriage proponents; they run the gamut from “opposition is bigotry” to “opposition is big bigotry”.
But chalk it up to “the wisdom of crowds”; gay marriage proponents know they don’t have to come up with a good argument, because heretofore “convincing” people has been a moot point; since the issue was going to be decided by a patrician imperial judge anyway, “convincing people” was about as relevant as “Mitch deciding what music to play when he gets Marisa Tomei back to his place”.
But now? With, potentially a constitutional amendment in place, weasel-proofing the issue? Gay Marriage proponents will have get their argument out of the realm of entitlement browbeating, and actually convince people.
And that would make democracy better.
Which is one of the reasons the left hates the idea so much. Which will bring us to the next bit, down below.