John writes:
> This would seem a pretty poor "benefit" in exchange for the problems
> created by having a constitution that is nearly impossible to amend.
I think there is a definite benefit (no scare quotes needed) to not amending the Constitution to prevent members of the same sex from marrying each other. Of course, others may have a different perspective.
Wendy writes:
> I don't think it's the left that would benefit if the constitution were
> easier to amend.
I agree. The impulse to amend arises many times (if not most often) from a reactionary/conservative instinct. Having a long amendment process serves to help fight these instincts and their manifestations.
Doug writes:
> No one ever argued that taste should be democratic, but what about
> government?
So if the government practices/endorses/enforces discrimination, this discrimination is okay if its manifestation has been arrived at/determined by a democratic process?
> And on what grounds is gay marriage "right," if it's not some
> philosophical position that's not open to a vote?
As far as I know, people voted that there should be no discrimination on the basis of sex. Marriage is a government-sanctioned rite that when entered into confers privileges and obligations on those who enter into it. To say that I as a man cannot enter into this contract with another man because he is a man is to discriminate on the basis of sex.
As far as I know, the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex was arrived at democratically. Isn't there an obligation on the part of the government to enforce the laws it enacts across the board?
> The designers of the constitutional contraption meant it to frustrate
> popular will. So you're against popular will?
I am against majoritarianism and a believer in/supporter of the rights of minorities. If the popular will was for denying women access to abortion, I would be opposed to the popular will. If the popular will was in favor of the disenfranchisement of blacks, I would be against the popular will.
The problem with your approach is that you draw an equivalency between the practice of democracy, the expression of popular will, and the best consequences for society and its citizenry. To my mind, the issue is far more complicated.
Brian Dauth Quer Buddhist Resister