I heard this rationalization again today from the conservative element in Wisconsin following yesterday's overturning of that state's ban on same-sex marriage. Basically it said that the courts should not overturn a constitutional amendment because, are you ready-
It was legally voted into law by a majority of the people of that state.On the very superficial surface (yes, that is redundant!) it kind of maybe makes sense. We are a democracy. There is majority rule. The one with the most votes wins. So who is this judge to make her own law.
Thank goodness that argument didn't win in the 1860s when THE SAME argument could have been used to deny slaves their freedom. After all, those states legally allowed slavery. Those states should have been allowed to keep their slaves. That's the old "states' rights" argument. So today the states that want to ban same-sex marriage should be allowed to maintain their prejudicial opinion, regardless of what may be a more informed and open decision.
Sorry Wisconsin (and other states') conservatives. That doesn't hold water. Once the Defense of Marriage Act was nullified, there is no legal reason to deny equal rights and privilege. My guess is that the side with the most money was actually the winner in the earlier debates over same-sex marriage ban. Now it is reason, common sense, and an acceptance of people who may have a different way of seeing the world.
Which brings me to another quick note:
Since when does the party with the most money get special privilege?
But that's for another time. For today,