Sometimes Wrong

I hate admitting errors but over the last months I’ve realized I wasn’t entirely correct vis-a-vis one particular political viewpoint. In the United States we seek balance. Executive vs. Judicial vs. Legislative and all that. And this Madisonian viewpoint is the most beautiful political vision ever brought to life.

But there is one aspect of it, which I have been neglecting of late. And that is the concept of temperance. In the Senate, most votes come down to “simple majority” but because of the need for “cloture” this number becomes 60 when the topic is very important (aka important to lots of people in the Senate).

Why is this? The founders believed that the mob is a very dangerous thing and should be kept in check at all times. This kind of thinking protects the minority against the whims of the general populace.

Who is this minority? It can be anyone. It can be the poor, the wealthy, racial minorities, religious minorities, etc.

An additional concept, which I have had to deal with lately is this “Declaration of Independence”, which is a document I rarely return to since it’s not within the legal framework of the United States, per se. However, it seems to hold great sway over people due to its’ “inalienable” rights clause. Which is to say that there are some rights, which (insert higher power here) hath given us by nature.

As I’ve delved into this issue I have realized that my true problem with the current debate over “gay marriage” is more about this latter point than the former. I find that I now agree with many activists in saying that a simple majority of citizens should not be able to dictate marriage law. This is similar to how I think a court should also not be able to dictate this without clear precedent (aka they should not use  extended and torturous reasoning).

I take issue with the concept of natural rights.

Yes, please all liberals and conservatives will now hate me. That’s fine.

Natural rights are just some stupid idea that YOU have in YOUR head. And I might disagree. There is no actual set of rights that we all actually have and merely “discover” and then right the laws to agree with these truths.

No.

Rights are things that humans come to agree upon in the course of time. Women simply did not have the right to vote before 1920. There wasn’t some special right in the sky, which said women could vote, and then human’s finally discovered it. No, humans decided that it would be a right because of the arguments made by suffragists and the changing of the times.

I know that sounds very unfair and not very nice.

But that’s how society functions. Mores and rules and expectations change with time. The US Constitution provides a framework within which we can apply those changing viewpoints.

So, in conclusion I was wrong. As in the Senate, when considering issues of great importance we cannot allow simple majorities to make decisions. However, I also do not believe in immutable truth. We decide the truth on a daily basis and it changes as we change.

I think this is why I never feel particularly strongly about any civil rights issues. I’m not filled with a sense of truth about “rights” at all.