Democratic Society vs State.

OK, here's a tricky topic for discussion. In California (again) they are fighting over the gay-marriage thing. Now here's the problem I see and it's becoming an argument topic in my house. It's the fact that the courts can overrule a lawfully elected piece of legislation.

On the one hand: (My argument) This country was founded on the principle (as everyone knows) of rule of the people, by the people and for the people. Since it came from a time in Europe when the common man had no say in the laws and stipends in the country they were living in, Our for-fathers decided that the people could and should help to decide what was best for behaviour. This, of course, created the democratic republic that we now . . . enjoy?

On the other hand: (My wife's argument) This rule of the people at the time was for white, landowners only. A court over ruled that decision giving first, all white men, then black men and then women the right to vote. The court (read state) has the right and obligation to decide what is best for the country in situations where personal rights are involved, particularly because of the "majority rules" situation.

By the first rule, majority decides which is proper. In the California case, the majority decided that gay-marriage is not to be. The majority of the population, in a legally held ballot, decided this. Another case is the situation in New York City concerning the construction of a mosque near ground zero: The majority says NO.

By the second case, because the majority voted negative (in both issues) the personal freedoms of those who believe in the affirmative are being neglected. That, because they are a minority, they have no chance of getting their decisions through and this is Constitutionally unfair.

OK, My argument (I'm sure Loretta will weigh in) is that by letting the courts decide what is legal or not, we are putting the power in the government into the hands of the state. In an admittedly slippery slope situation, this COULD set the precedent for the state to take over, nudging the common man out, leading to a dictatorial state. Some high mucky-muck (like an elected president) could get it into his head and start to dictate what we are to do, say, or even think. OK, not what to think. But the POTENTIAL is there, if we decide to let the state overrule the wants and needs of the majority. We could also have some minority group, such as the KKK, use the precedents (that are already out there, by-the-bye) to get the courts (a minority themselves that have been known to be controlled) to pass certain . . . resolutions, to protect THEIR interests. This latter example is not such a slippery slope as the former.

IF we are to allow the courts to overrule the decisions of the majority, then what is the purpose of having a democratic society. The minority can now begin to rule, pleading rights violations. If that is the case, there is no longer any need to put anything up to a vote. We might as well have our judges decide who joins them on the bench, what laws are what, and who leads this nation.

Time to weigh in, folks.