by John Young
This country was never intended to be a democracy. Our founding fathers knew quite well that there was a Bell Curve of human excellence, and that the number of people on the far right of that curve was quite small. When the War Between The States was fought, most of the draftees — overwhelmingly white men — did not have the right to vote. It was only in the decades following the war that men generally gained the right to vote, reasoning that if a man has the legal responsibility to fight, bleed and die on the basis of governmental edicts (and can be executed for failing to do so), he should have some say in electing that government. Most men got the right to vote only a couple of decades before that right (though not the accompanying responsibility) was extended to women.
Obviously, the more widely the net of franchise is cast, the lower the aggregate IQ of the electorate, the less capable of postponing gratification, the less capable of foreseeing or even caring about adverse consequences. So overall, the more people who are qualified to vote, the better it works out for left-of-center politicians promising a free lunch borrowed from as-yet-unborn grandchildren. Though there are exceptions, in general, voting has become a situation in which most qualified voters are not net taxpayers and are not subject to selective service. This creates a moral hazard in which voters have the authority to place responsibilities on others to which they are not themselves subject. The long-range outcome of this is obvious and can be seen in the $16.9 trillion current national debt amounting to over $140,000 for every taxpayer.
But even so, given the penchant of politicians to tug their forelocks to special interests, there are times when the aggregate electorate has enough common sense to impose limits on the predation of their elected officials. California has such a mechanism, whereby legislation can be put on the ballot so that a majority of voters can override the decisions of the legislature. It is an important safety measure intended to allow the will of the people on major issues to keep delusional politicians in check. This is precisely what Californians did with Question 8, outlawing same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court overturned that law.
This was not a law mandating that gay people be burned at the stake, or that any other natural Constitutional rights of individuals of ANY sexual orientation be violated. Rather, it simply defined marriage as it has been traditionally defined in European cultures for thousands of years: one man, one woman.
On a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court effectively ruled that law to be null and void.
Think about that for a second.
The details of the matter are hardly important. Think instead of the structure of what happened.
The California government did something the people of California found unconscionable. The people of California gathered petitions, jumped through legal hurdles, and voted to keep matters as they had been for thousands of years.
Then, five people on the other side of the country who had never been elected by anyone — save a pro-forma approval by the Senate — canceled that vote.
In theory, Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence that government derives its JUST powers from the consent of the governed. In other words, the only claim the government has of legitimacy is DEMOCRACY.
But if that government can unilaterally cancel the results of elections that it happens not to like, what then is the source of its legitimacy?
You will find the answer at the point of a bullet in the magazine of an M-16 rifle held in the hands of a government employee. That is, when the government can unilaterally void the results of elections, its only claim to legitimacy is the same claim as an armed thug in a dark alley: you do what he says because he has the means and mindset to kill.
In overturning Proposition 8, the government in Washington said: “You can have democracy so long as the results of elections agree with what we want. If we don’t like the results, we’ll impose our own will.”
As I stated earlier, democracy with widespread franchise has its issues. And one of them is that it allowed government to become this arrogant, to slip its chains, to lose its legitimacy, and become little more than a thug in the night with a gun.