jeffwinget.com

I haven’t said much about the gay marriage debate that is raging in California and within the Mormon church.  While I’m very interested in the debate, I’ve tried to stay out of it as much as possible so as not to offend my family with my pro-gay-marriage stance.  In private, I’ve had interesting conversations with my mom, my brother-in-law, and my wife about the issue, but I haven’t blogged about it, until today.

I recently read this post at the Good Reason blog and was alerted to the diatribe by prominent Mormon author Orson Scott Card on the subject of gay marriage.  Until I read this piece, the only thing that I knew about Card was that he was the LDS author of the novel Ender’s Game, which I haven’t read.  Many people had suggested that I teach Ender’s Game in my class, suggesting that it was not only entertaining, but thematically strong.  Since I try to always teach some contemporary authors in my classroom to offset the dead old white guys (DOWGS) that usually get taught, teaching Card’s novel seemed appealing.  Of course, since I haven’t read it, and won’t be able to before school starts, I wouldn’t have taught it this year.

Now, after reading Card’s article, I can guarantee that I won’t teach it ever.

The article begins with the most ridiculous thesis on the subject that I have ever read:

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to “gay marriage,” is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

The end of democracy?  Really?

He tries to make the point that judges shouldn’t be the ones making laws for the rest of us, and that since judges in California overturned the vote of the people to restrict gay marriage, that democracy is dead.  On the surface, it almost sounds like a rational argument, but it’s not.

I’ve heard many people on the right side of the political spectrum use the argument that “America is a republic, not a democracy.”  This statement is true.  We are a constitutional republic, not a true democracy.  But what does that mean?  It means that the will of the majority cannot subvert the rights of the minority.  It’s funny that in any argument involving minority rights, the term democracy is used by the opponents of the rights, but when it’s the minority arguing, they suddenly remember that we live in a republic.

That being said, Card’s thesis falls on its face.  The court’s overturning of a law, passed by the majority, in order to protect the rights of the minority is exactly what is supposed to happen.  The court didn’t “make” a law; it overturned an unconstitutional one.  They do it all the time.  If they didn’t, the right to bare arms that is guaranteed in th 2nd amendment would’ve been obliterated years ago, but the court has done its job and protected that right as well.

Since Card’s thesis is false and proves only that he needs a civics lesson, the rest of the article is bunk.  For a discussion of it, read Daniel’s piece at Good Reason.  It is excellent.