Skip to comments.Dictatorship of the minority (state supported gay "marriage")
Posted on 12/13/2004 6:07:47 AM PST by MikeEdwards
Recently I heard a talk-radio host explain why making gay marriage legal is so important. His reasoning went something like this: yes we live in a democracy, which by definition is about majority rule, but within that framework we must also protect the rights of minorities, ensuring that they have access to the same legal guarantees that the majority does. Looks good on paper, but the reality is slightly more involved.
Lets look at the concept of democracy, under which the majoritys will is done. Simply stated, there are winners, as in George W. Bush and Paul Martin and there are losers, as in John Kerry and Stephen Harper. It seems to me that under the definition of "democracy" embraced by the above-mentioned radio host, the rights of the minority should be respected and the outcomes of the American and Canadian elections should provide for both John Kerry and Stephen Harper to be president and prime minister as well. After all, not to allow for this would be "oppressive" to the minority who voted for the two, or at least logic would dictate. . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
This guy is clueless from the get-go.
Federalist No. 39
The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
(For the Independent Journal)
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.