![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Orson Scott Card Can Bite Me
Aug. 2nd, 2008 04:06 amMr. Card does not like gay marriage, because it is not in accord with his religious beliefs. He claims to be against it because it is "the end of democracy in America." His objection is that courts are interpreting state constitutions so as to allow gay marriage, even though the popular vote has come down against it.
Mr. Card does not understand the plain meaning of the phrase "interpreting the state constitution."
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- Robert H. Jackson, majority opinion in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), emphasis added.
I trust that Jackson's reference to the Bill of Rights rather than the California constitution does not obscure the issue. It is one of the oldest principles in American law that a Constitution, be it federal or state, cannot be circumvented by a mere act of the legislature, however well that act may accord with the popular will.
I have some problems with the "right to property" protected by the U. S. Constitution. The word "Constitution" implies that, no matter how many people agree with me, I can suck it. So, too, can Orson Scott Card. An attempt to enact religious dogma into law under the banner of "democracy" is odious. A member of a comparatively small sect such as the LDS should know better.
The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, so William H. Rehnquist can bite me too.
Mr. Card does not understand the plain meaning of the phrase "interpreting the state constitution."
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- Robert H. Jackson, majority opinion in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), emphasis added.
I trust that Jackson's reference to the Bill of Rights rather than the California constitution does not obscure the issue. It is one of the oldest principles in American law that a Constitution, be it federal or state, cannot be circumvented by a mere act of the legislature, however well that act may accord with the popular will.
I have some problems with the "right to property" protected by the U. S. Constitution. The word "Constitution" implies that, no matter how many people agree with me, I can suck it. So, too, can Orson Scott Card. An attempt to enact religious dogma into law under the banner of "democracy" is odious. A member of a comparatively small sect such as the LDS should know better.
The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, so William H. Rehnquist can bite me too.
