May 24, 2013
May 22, 2013
They launched the 'Arab Spring' but now yearn for the good old days of a strongman
May 20, 2013
Richard A. Serrano: Is Meir Kahane's assassin now a changed man?
Genetic copies of living people from embryos no longer science fiction
Jewz in the Newz by Nate Bloom :
The Kosher Gourmet by Cathy Pollak:
Jews Inducted into Rock Hall of Fame; Anton Yelchin co-stars in New "Trek" film; Kutcher (but not Kunis) visits Israel; Jewish TV Star Praises Jewish Rap Star
WARNING: This WALNUT CAKE WITH PRALINE FROSTING, perfect for afternoon coffee, is addicting
May 13, 2013
Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo: Why the giving of the document that would permanently change the world could only be done in desolation
David G. Savage:
Church-state, literally? Supreme Court weighing public school graduation in a church
May 10, 2013
Rabbi Berel Wein: Be all that you should be
May 8, 2013
Peter Ford: Why China is welcoming both Israel's Netanyahu and Palestinians' Abbas
Obama administration quietly backs out of appeal over new contraceptive mandate
At Kerry-Putin meeting, US-Russia relations thaw --- a tad
The Kosher Gourmet by Leela Cyd Ross :
Almost too pretty to eat, this colorful salad with Sicilian inspiration will tickle the taste buds and delight your visual sensibility
May 6, 2013
May 3, 2013
Kids, kittens the Same?
With employee perks at struggling Internet pioneer Yahoo! it's hard to tell
Artificial kidney offers hope to patients tethered to a dialysis machine
April 29, 2013
Poland's new Jewish museum celebrates life, doesn't revisit Holocaust
Terrorism in America: Is US missing a chance to learn from failed plots?
Boston Bomber's 'Svengali' Revealed
Tiny satellites + cellphones = cheaper 'eyes in the sky' for NASA
April 26, 2013
Clifford D. May:
Defense in the Age of Jihadist Terrorism
Sharon Palmer, R.D.:
How to feel your best -- with plenty of energy, a healthy weight and optimal mental and physical function -- without driving yourself batty
April 24, 2013
Jewish World Review
Nov. 16, 2006
/ 25 Mar-Cheshvan 5767
Democracy and same-sex marriage
Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force,
was celebrating Arizona's defeat of a proposed constitutional amendment defining
marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"It is always wrong to put basic rights up for a popular vote," he said, "and
it is nearly impossible for any minority to protect itself when that happens.
But today in Arizona the impossible happened."
Constitutional democracy is incompatible with the rights of minorities? That
would have come as news to champions of American liberty from John Adams to
Martin Luther King. They would have been even more taken aback, to use no
stronger term, by the suggestion that there is a "basic right" to homosexual
marriage, something American law has never permitted.
Once, Americans who considered themselves progressive had faith in the
collective wisdom of the citizenry and fought to extend the franchise to more
people (e.g., women) and more decisions (e.g., the election of US senators).
Their democratic confidence reflected a civic conviction as old as American
independence itself -- that "governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed."
But don't talk to advocates of same-sex marriage about the consent of the
governed. They appear to regard democracy as a snare to be avoided. Hence their
preference for securing gay marriage by judicial command, as in Massachusetts
and New Jersey. And hence their aversion to letting voters decide whether the
definition of marriage should be changed.
"History is replete with examples of advances in civil rights that would not
have been tolerated had they been put to a popular vote," wrote Kathleen
O'Connor, president of the Women's Bar Association, about the petition by
170,000 Massachusetts voters for a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
"If our Bill of Rights were today submitted for voter approval, it would be
defeated as too radical."
Even more scornful of democracy was the Berkshire Eagle. "If civil rights were a
matter for the ballot box," the largest newspaper in western Massachusetts
editorialized on Nov. 8, "blacks would undoubtedly still be drinking from
separate water coolers and riding in the back of buses." When the Massachusetts
Legislature corruptly avoided voting on the petitioners' amendment, ducking the
vote required by the state constitution, the paper cheered its lawlessness.
"Civil rights should never be determined by a majority of voters," it declared.
"Ballot questions are blunt instruments, lacking the delicacy of legislation."
It is hard to say which is sadder: the contempt for ordinary Americans that such
comments reflect, or the ignorance of American history underlying them.
To begin with, it wasn't through "blunt" ballot measures that Southern buses and
water fountains were segregated. It took the "delicacy of legislation" to write
something so abominable into law.
Nor was it by means of a judicial bolt from the blue that segregation was
finally crushed. It was through the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a
legislative milestone that would never have been reached if not for the fact
that a majority of white Americans supported it.
To be sure, there were court cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education, that
played a role in extending civil rights to citizens of every race. But those
rulings didn't conjure newfangled "rights" out of thin air. They restored rights
that had been created democratically and were already supposed to be the law of
the land. The 14th Amendment -- approved by Congress and ratified by
three-fourths of the states in 1868 -- had guaranteed equality and due process
to blacks and whites alike. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 had barred
discrimination in public accommodations. But the Supreme Court had gutted those
protections -- for example in 1896, when it authorized streetcar segregation in
Plessy v. Ferguson. It wasn't democracy that failed black Americans during the
long decades of Jim Crow. It was a judiciary unwilling to protect the equality
that the democratic process had guaranteed.
The republican form of government to which all Americans are entitled makes them
the source of the constitution(s) under which they live. The only valid civil
rights are those that have the consent of the governed. Their legitimacy comes
from the democratic process, not from judicial fiat or political correctness.
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people
themselves," Thomas Jefferson said, "and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take
it from them, but to inform their discretion." Same-sex marriage will never be a
civil right until the people in their discretion make it one.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.
Jeff Jacoby Archives
© 2006, Boston Globe
Richard Z. Chesnoff
Frank J. Gaffney
Victor Davis Hanson
A. Barton Hinkle
Judge A. Napolitano
Cokie & Steve Roberts
Debra J. Saunders
J. D. Crowe
Ask Doctor K