Friday, July 16, 2010

NOM Still Claiming Victory

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is still claiming victory, even with all the recent defeats of their agenda in courtrooms across the nation.

In the words of NOM president Brian Brown -

With the closely divided 5-4 DC Court of Appeal ruling today prohibiting a voter referendum on the District of Columbia’s gay marriage law, the way is cleared for us to finally get the issue before the United States Supreme Court, where we are confident of victory. The central issue in this case is whether the people of the District of Columbia will be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote on this important issue, just as voters in 31 states have been able to do. The razor-thin majority on the DC Appeals court got it wrong when they said they owed substantial deference to the DC Council. In fact, it is the right of the people that is owed substantial deference by courts and the Council. We believe the US Supreme Court will agree with us. In considering getting involved in this case last March, Chief Justice John Roberts said our argument in the case ‘has some force.’ The Court decided to give the DC Court of Appeal the opportunity to consider the case. With today’s decision, we look forward to bringing our fight for the right to vote on marriage to the nation’s highest court.”
Ok buddy, the Constitution nowhere gives anyone the "right" to vote on the civil rights of minority groups. If that was the case, then I should be given the right to vote on the legality of the civil right that you have to say such things. Yes the courts should defer to the people, but it should only do so when those people are not imposing personal animus onto another group within society. It was to guard against this personal animus that the Courts were originally instituted in our country.


  1. In fact, the Constitution was written specifically to prevent the emergence of mob rule in the United States, and to restrict the majority's ability to impose its will on the entire country through a system of checks and balances, in which courts are integral.

    And while Roberts agreed that NOM's argument "has some force," he also said that it is "unlikely" that the Supreme Court will ever hear this case.

  2. Very true!! The entire founding philosophy of the U.S. was built upon "majority rule, with minority protection". If the founders had wanted pure majority rule, then they would have implemented a direct democracy, but through their readings of the great political philosophers of their time - such as Locke and Rousseau - they recognized this was a dangerous form of government. Thus, they established us as a Constitutional republic, with the checks and balances that you have already pointed out.
    Thanks for the comment!!


Related Posts with Thumbnails