You may have heard that Connecticut (my home state) became the third state to allow gay marriages. The state supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage in a 4-3 split decision. This quick post is not about the issue of gay marriage. If you wish to read the details of the Connecticut decision, you can go to the Hartford Courant, or some other news source, to get the full story. I've included a link below.This post is about understanding the risk of tyranny of the majority.
One of the arguments put forth by gay marriage opponents in Connecticut is that gay marriage is not supported by the majority of voters in Connecticut. Their argument is that courts should not decide the issue. They wish to put it to a state-wide referendum, knowing full well that gay marriage would be rejected in such a referendum.
At first glance, one might argue that a state-wide referendum makes sense. After all, this is a democracy. Majority rules, right?
However, even in a democracy there are some issues that can not be left up to the people. This might seem to some like democratic blasphemy. However, I leave you with this thought: What would have been the outcome if the issue of slavery were put to state-wide referendums in the mid-1800s?
Our founding fathers were wise to understand the risks of a direct democracy. I hope that risk is still understood today.
Posts
1 comment:
Test comment
Post a Comment