One of the greatest challenges of a democratic society is to provide for protection against what John Stuart Mill called the "Tyranny of the Majority".
As with free speech, this is most difficult when you are in opposition to the will of the individual or the minority. It is always easy to defend the rights of those with whom you are in agreement. To defend against the enforcement of a position you yourself endorse requires a greater morality then that taught in water cooler discussions, family experience or under the auspices of a religious institution.
Our legally elected President has endorsed the proposal of a constitutional amendment whose ultimate goal is no less then the disengagement of a portion of the population he is charged to protect from the basic rights asserted in the very formation of the nation he now leads.
This nation was formed around the idea of certain unalienable rights. To quote a document with which the President of the United States should be greatly familiar, "Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
It is the solemn duty of the government of this nation to protect it's citizens against the power and despotism of it's own population. Regardless of the intent or moral stance of the largest portion of the people, to actively pursue the limitation of a section of this countries citizens from their right to pursue happiness in a manner that does not harm the person or livelihood of another citizen is no less than the greatest possible dereliction of duty and can be characterized at worst as treasonous.
To legistate against a single person in a manner to restrict his or her liberty due to a belief that you know better then he what is good, right or moral for him is an affront against the Constitution of this great nation and an encroachment upon the claim which drove us to cast off the yoke of English monarchy. That claim being that we are free men.
It is a betrayal to be elected to the office of the highest single position of power over a nation of free men and then to wilt in the face of public outcry and endorse a limitation of the liberty of the populace with whom you are charged with protecting. Were it but a single person standing against us all, if his claim did no harm to another individual it would be the duty of the President to champion his cause and rally to his defense. Instead, our President has consulted the polls and decided to throw the christians to the lions for the entertainment of the masses.
I will end by once again quoting On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. "
Mr. President, I call upon you to rethink your position and assume the true duties of the office to which you were elected. Show me the truth of your morality.
3 comments:
The truth of his morality is that he has none.
The man's audacity never ceases to amaze me. This amendment will supposedly "protect families." Um, how? Without it, the national divorce rate has already been declining. Although it's still over 40% (and higher in RED than BLUE states), one thing you can say for sure: Heterosexuals are the ones to blame for any weaknesses in the "institution" of marriage.
It so much easier to direct people to hate than it is to make them think.
Post a Comment