Bird’s-Eye View

At the Nest today, we took a look over at our colleague’s blog, Smart Remarks, and found the new video of Bill O’Reilly quite compelling. Check it out first then proceed:

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=9ca7efa6-5a1d-4443-97be-00cd871b6726

I bring this up because I have to applaud O’Reilly for his line of questioning. The attorney is justifying a ban on gay marriage simply because he believes a majority of Californians do not want homosexuals to exchange nuptials the way heterosexuals do.

So here comes the broken record motif: To all the opponents of gay marriage - we in this country do not decide matters based on majority vote. This is not a straight democracy, but a representative republic. Just because 51 percent of the population wants something doesn’t mean we’re going to get it. That’s not the way the system works. What happens to the argument if 51 percent of people think gay marriage is okay? What then will be the argument? And if the people are to decide how marriage is defined, great, why not let ‘em decide in the privacy of their own lives and in their own living rooms. The weakest argument for a constitutional amendment is to say “because a majority of people want it.”

My point is, if we simply let majority rule define public policy in this country, where does it end? That’s the part that scares me the most about this sort of mentality.