It dawned on me that social democrats think most everything should be subject to a majority vote.
It's the only way that you could implement the "will of the people." Yet folks fighting for gay marriage don't believe that a majority vote should matter (or, at least, decide the case) -- instead, they think that gays have inalienable rights to the privileges hetero's have.
However, if there are these things called inalienable rights (as gay advocates say, either explicitly or implicitly), and if everyone's got them, then certainly more fundamental rights exist than the rights to get your life partnership sanctioned by the governing bodies (so that you may enjoy the privileges available to others who already have this sanction).
And, if "marriage rights" can not exist without the fundamental rights such as the right to life, liberty, and property -- then non-libertarian (e.g. Democrat) gay advocates are hypocrits. In fact, anyone who supports the 2008 bailouts and who also fights Proposition 8 -- is a hypocrit.
Lefties who fight for "the little guy" want it both ways. They want majority rule when the issue involves a majority, and minority rule (cut-throat hegemony) when the issue involves a minority. In short, they just want to rule (rather than to respect rights).
Edit:
I got the idea for this blog entry by watching The Daily Show last night where John Stewart inteviewed Mike Huckabee. Stewart attacked Huckabee's defense of the definition of marriage. Huckabee retreated to the defense-by-majority-vote characteristically used by Liberals. Huckabee said some good things: like the truism that words mean things, and that that matters immensely -- but, staying on the defensive (rather than treating John Stewart like a hypocrit), he lost the debate, by-and-large.
|
