De Tocqueville might also argue that the majority, if it were to vote against this bill, would be smothering the voice of the very minority whose rights are at stake. In our current democracy, the opinions of the minority are considered null and void, unless that minority is near in size to the majority. Then a case for compromise might be made, but this happens very rarely. Alexis was aware that the majority also has the unique ability to influence public opinion, saying, "No monarch is so absolute that he can hold all the forces of society in his hands and overcome all resistance as a majority invested with the right to make the laws and to execute them, can do" (De Tocqueville 255).
Even if the majority has made a poor decision, it would be impossible to oppose it. Anyone who speaks out publicly against the majority's decision will be the subject of ridicule. His opinions will be made worthless and his supporters will become scarce. This brave man, “will remain among men but ... lose [his] rights to count as one,” (De Tocqueville 256). De Tocqueville would be disgusted that the majority today holds absolute power to grant or deny rights to the gay community. The majority is nothing more than a collective tyrant. A solitary tyrant would be much easier to deal with, because thousands of people with the same beliefs wield much more power than a single man. It’s relatively easy to remove a tyrant; it is nearly impossible to oppose the will of the majority.
Love is not based on reason but if it must be judged by a government and its country then everyone should have a say so that all possibilities are explored. Its true that the majority of america is smuthering the opinions of those whoes lives are affected most but since everyone has an opinion and feels like they are in some way affected they have a right to speak. this i a case where not everyone will agree but justice must be had, unforchunatly it has been left up to the government to decide what kind of love is just. ali is right the minority looses their opportunity to decide their own fate which is why this should not be a matter for a government to sort out. if marridge is thought of as spiritual then a government enforced rule about same sex couplesis against the 1st amendment.
ReplyDelete"collective tyrant" - perfect way to say it. Sometimes the will of majority must be tested
So do you guys think the government has any right to make laws about marriage? Or since marriage is such a personal thing that everyone has their own opinions about, should it be in the hands of each individual person to make laws and define marriage for themselves? Since this is such a controversial subject and it seems like it will be impossible to please everyone, do you think it would be possible to keep marriage and government completely separate? So people would be given benefits due to other things and not marriage? What gives the government or other people the right to mess with or get involved in someone’s personal love life? People need to feel like they have control over the parts of their lives that are the most personal and private. I think love and marriage or relationships should be one of the things that each individual person should have control over.
ReplyDeleteI think that the government, as a non-religiously affiliated body, does not have the power to define a marriage as "between a man and a woman". That is based on religious beliefs, and does not belong on the government's agenda. The separation of Church and State, although imperfect, should be maintained to the best of our abilities. The only time our government should act against religious beliefs is if they endanger the constitutional rights of other citizens. Sharia Law, for example, calls for the murder of citizens who have done nothing legally wrong. As this directly violates the constitution, the government should step in to prevent such needless loss of life. Gay marriage does nothing to endanger the rights of any American citizens. Some people believe that their marriages will become "less sacred" if gay marriage is legalized, but that really isn't something the government should be concerned with.
ReplyDeleteOur government is in place to protect its citizens, not please them. Even thought the majority of people are for this bill, it still denies rights to american citizens because of who they choose to marry. It doesn't matter that the majority are unhappy with the legalization of gay marriage; the gay community deserves the same rights as the rest the american population. The government, in a perfect state, would protect the rights of marriages, despite the gender of the spouses. Anna, you're right, marriage is a deeply personal matter, and one that the government should not deny anyone. Each citizen should have the right to choose who they marry and feel secure in knowing that their government will protect their rights.
I'm wondering if there is a way issues concerning a minority can be decided. If we put it to a vote, the majority wins, which isn't fair to the minority in question. But a single person deciding on such laws would place the minority at the mercy of this leader's whims. Is there a happy medium?
ReplyDeleteAlso, would it be possible to have a government that is not led by a single monarch, or a tyrannical majority? Is it possible for every voice to be heard, or has America gotten as close as is humanly possible to a 'by the people, for the people' form of government?
Agreed! (Everything!)
ReplyDeleteIt would seem as though the only way the minority could truly be considered is a system based on compromise, but the downside would be that nothing would ever be accomplished...
I think that the idea of American democracy is as close as humanly possible to a fully representative government, but I do not think that it necessarily follows the system well enough to claim that title.
Also-I missed class, which de Toqueville reading is this? Short or long? because they both apply.... thanks!