> 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. (Brian)
I think there is a definite benefit to not amending the constitution to preventing any two people from marrying. This is however a side benefit that derives from the problem of having a constitution that is too difficult to amend. Not completely unlike thanking the fascists for making the trains run on time or some such 'benefit'. The constitution is a relic from another era and should be radically altered or discarded.
> 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. (Brian)
The constitution serves to prevent 'excess democracy'. If an occasional side benefit is the result it does not alter that fact. The constitution is not the best tool to use to check the problems that can arise in a predominantly majoritarian government.
> 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? (Brian)
>
> > And on what grounds is gay marriage "right," if it's not some
> > philosophical position that's not open to a vote? (Doug)
>
> 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. (Brian)
This issue, as Brian points out, has already been resolved. As a nation we have already decided not to descriminate on the basis of sex. If in agreeing to that people did not fully realize its implications, well that's just too fucking bad. Either go back and re-decide as a society that we will allow descrimination based solely on the sex of the person (unlikely in the extreme) or live with the consequences of the current decision.
> > The designers of the constitutional contraption meant it to frustrate
> > popular will. So you're against popular will? (Doug)
>
> 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
Democracy isn't perfect and there should be checks to prevent right-wing moralizing from sweeping away progress in the name of majoritarianism. That's a long way away from being glad an instrument of oppression like the constitution is difficult to change because I can find one or four 'benefits' that do not even come close to balancing it's multiple deficiencies.
John Thornton