November 6th, 2008
In perusing the post-election headlines, I ran across this story about Californians protesting the passage of the controversial “Proposition 8″ which amended the state constitution to prohibit homosexual marriages. My purpose here is not to comment on the proposition or even the social issue at all. Rather, in reading the story, it occurred to me that I could not recall another instance in which there were public demonstrations and protests over the outcome of a popular vote.
I can understand people protesting the government when it makes unilateral actions that people disagree with. Certainly the purpose of protesting (and indeed, the First Amendment) is to ensure the people have a voice when their government takes actions with which the people disagree. But Proposition 8 was voted on by the people. Those for it and those opposed to it had their voices heard, not just with the pre-vote campaigning, but in the exercise of the vote itself.
So what do you think? Is this a perfectly legitimate protest, or does it border on “sour grapes”? Are there any other instances I am not aware of where Americans protested the outcome of the direct exercise of democracy?
“sour grapes”? surely you kid. In your effort to dodge social commentary you invite it all the same. perhaps you should revisit Plessy and then Brown. think constitutional democracy not majoritarian government. we are duty bound to protect the interests of minority voices. those protesting are justifiably angry. and I am angry too.
Greg, your response highlights many of the problems with moral relativism. First of all, you suggest we are “duty bound…” How? What binds us to such a duty? Next, what constitutes the protection of “the interests of minority voices?” This is an important question since the past 40 year or so have demonstrated an increasing propensity on the part of the government to treat the minority voice almost as a super-majority. The minority voice has become one of the strongest simply by the fact of its minority. Put another way, it is nearly the case that if you don’t agree with any given minority voice, you must be some sort of bigot. The implicit assumption is that there can be no valid objection to a minority viewpoint. Is that what you’re suggesting? Or is it that the minority nature of a certain opinion trumps any legitimate objections to it?
Also, your response seems to neglect that fact that we ARE a majoritarian government. That’s the entire point of a democracy: majority rules. Now there are many legitimate critiques of such an approach, but they do not change the fact that it is what we have.
Lastly, I don’t doubt the sincerity of the anger caused by this issue. It is certainly to be expected. But it makes my point, in a way. No one is happy about losing a vote. But to complain about the process after the fact, once you’ve gotten an adverse outcome is very much “sour grapes.”
Before Nov. 4, both sides campaigned. There were “YES” ads on TV, there were “NO” ads on TV. Both sides did their best to get their messages across. Then when one side comes out on the wrong end of the vote, they begin protesting, filing lawsuits that the measure is unconstitutional, and complaining about the process. Again, my purpose is not to say which side is right, but to ask whether there are any other examples (besides perhaps the 2000 Florida Recount) where the loser of a fair democratic procedure complained afterwards to this extent.