Civil Rights v. Self Governance

This is America, where the people have the right to govern themselves, right?


Skip to ahead to 1:06 for the crux of Pastor Franklin's argument, which is:

If they were to overturn this it would be a very scary day for California. What the court’s going to decide here is not the validity of same-sex marriage. They’re deciding on the validity of the people’s rights to govern themselves...

I was attending a Fresno rally in protest of the decision to uphold Prop. 8 when I was asked if I could tell the difference between civil rights and upholding a person's constitutional rights to vote and speak [freely]. To which I reply, yes. But we’ll get to that in a moment.

At this point, I think it is worthwhile to congratulate those in opposition to marriage equality (and by extension full inclusion of the gay community) for successfully changing the subject, yet again. As much as I’d love to rake him over the coals in a public debate, I agree with Pastor Franklin that self governance is an American ideal that must always be upheld. But he has committed a very subtle sleight of hand that I want to make sure passes no one’s attention.

Through the history of this country there are examples of legislation and judicial interpretation that at one time or another has codified the oppression of a minority group. For the most part we, the people, have been successful at removing those laws and using the courts to uphold high standards of equality. Prop. 8 was an unprecedented constitutional amendment that restricted rights for some people. In creating its narrow definition of the term “marriage” it specifically targets an outsider (minority) group and prevents them access to that definition. We, the majority, of heterosexuals now have the exclusive right to marry a person of our choosing. We are a constitutionally privileged class.

My direct answer to the question of civil rights and self governance should expose Pastor Franklin’s sleight of hand. Civil rights describes the need to make laws so that a minority group can enjoy freedoms from which they are currently excluded. Self governance (including a person’s right to vote and speak freely) describes The People’s right to create laws. Hopefully those laws will make this country a better place to live. With Prop. 8, The People have made a law that excludes a minority group from a freedom the majority enjoys, thus making said minorities' American lives harder for them. I am at my wit's end to see how Prop. 8 makes life better for the majority group.

Pastor Franklin’s lie (let’s call the duck a duck) is that self governance gives us the authority to choose “who” gets access to “what” civil rights. It gives us the right to oppress minority groups, so long as the majority agrees. This is a perversion of self governance that is a clear and present threat to civil liberty. The very notion that we have to sacrifice self governance to civil rights is absurd.

At the rally I spoke to a man named Bill, who admitted he was against gay marriage. He was there because he wanted to understand why people are so vociferous about it. When I explained that a simple majority should not be able to restrict civil rights he asked how many votes are enough. I didn’t really answer him then so I will now: No amount of votes is enough to oppress a minority group. Civil rights and self governance should never come into conflict. Rather, self governance is the tool which we use to secure and insure civil rights. California has used that tool for its opposite purpose, namely to restrict the civil rights of a minority class. This directly violates our American ideal that all men are created equal and are endowed with the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

The Constitution declares that the majoritarian chorus may not alone dictate the conditions of social life. -Justice William Brennan