Participation and Traditions

The New York Times > National > Court in California Hears Gay Marriage Arguments: Though they differed in their reasons, the state and other lawyers argued there was nothing unconstitutional or discriminatory about a law that defines marriage in a manner consistent with tradition and the desire of most Californians. 'The word 'marriage' has a particular meaning to them, and they don't want that meaning to change,' said Louis R. Mauro, a senior assistant attorney general. Mr. Mauro added, 'Complex social policies should not be determined in this courtroom' and 'the public needs to be a part of the process.'

How would the desires of the people be relevant in a discussion of minority rights? If the codification of bigotry is subject to the desires of the people, do you really think we would allow African-Americans into our Anglo-American schools? Let's try it this way:

Existential Redux: Though they differed in their reasons, the state and other lawyers argued there was nothing unconstitutional or discriminatory about a law that defines humanity in a manner consistent with tradition and the desire of most Californians. 'The word 'human' has a particular meaning to them, and they don't want that meaning to change,' said Louis R. Mauro, a senior assistant attorney general. Mr. Mauro added, 'Complex social policies should not be determined in this courtroom' and 'the public needs to be a part of the process.'

Picture the discussion being the rights of almost any minority group. Imagine trying to abolish segregation through "the public." Picture a world where the relative calm of a courtroom is removed from the process. Weren't the McCarthy hearings a participation of the public in the process? Wouldn't red scare be consistent with the desires of the public at that time? Furthermore, if we want to base marital benefits upon tradition, then let us engage in a full examination of this tradition. Based upon the tradition, I would like to see a constitutional amendment banning divorce and clarifying the nature of a wife as property. And while we are working on these issues of tradition, let's make it illegal for women to work. Otherwise, they might choose to avoid getting married altogether! All this would be a violation of the tradition of marriage.