Thoughts on the Rights of the Vox Populi

As a student at a major university, those hotbeds of youthful political idealism, I hear a lot of talk about the Gay Marriage Debate. I hear about Iowa joining the handful of east-coast states that have legalized it. I hear about Proposition 8, now law, in California. And as most universities are, mine leans liberal, though it is not as bad as, say the University of Michigan. I find many people bemoaning Prop. 8 and praising Iowa's decision. I am in the group who dissents, but I am not in the group seeking the eradication of Gay Marriage as immoral. But before I get to that opinion specifically, I need to lay out the foundation of my reasoning, so that it can be best understood.



The Founding Fathers created our nation with two guiding principles: A guaruntee of certain rights in the Bill of Rights, and the establishment of democracy via the Republican Style of Governance. However, there is a substantial potential for conflict in those promises, arising in the fact that the will of the people may not always align with the values of the Constitution. Effectively, they have created an unstoppable force in the voice of the people, and an immovable object through the inalienable rights guarunteed by the Constitution. As someone must be victor in the event of a clashing between these two if anything is to ever to be accomplished in our government, I have personally decided to pledge my allegiances to the Voice of the Masses.



I have chosen this path as I firmly believe that a nation is defined by its people, and that no matter what laws it sets, as long as there are people identifying as Americans the United States of America will continue to exist. Take, for example, the United Kingdom. The Scots insist that they are independent from England, and have thus maintained all tenants of a nation beyond seperate borders, and even then they have fought fiercely. They are as much a country as France and Poland were during the Second World War. They have citizens who identify as Scots, they have distinct culture, and a political voice, and therefore maintain their status, in my opinion, as a nation, if not a soveirgn one.



Also, I believe that the founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be amendable. That is why Constitutional Conventions are held. If it weren't for the ability to move the immovable object, slavery would continue to exist and women would not have the right to vote. These are the result of the ideals of America's Citizenry, not its Constitution. These actions reflect the will of those responsible for them, and not the ideas of the Founding Fathers, as those men knew full well that without the flexibility to adapt, no form of government could peacefully rule a people.



So, with this knowledge, my decisions about Proposition 8 and the Gay Marriage Ruling in Iowa can be easily deduced. I support Proposition 8 as a movement by the voting majority in California to create an environment in which they are happy. I rejoice for them for their decision to affect their government, and congratulate them on their sucess. In Iowa, a court decision ruled that Gay Marriage must be allowed under state law, and I in no way fault the courts for this decision. I do, however, fault the Iowa Democratic Party for their blocking of a motion by Iowa Republicans to call a Constitutional Convention. If the court ruling truly reflected the Will of the People, the Democrats should have nothing to fear, which leads me to conclude that they are aware that their victory flies in the face of the values of their consituents. This is why I oppose the continued licensing of homosexual couples in Iowa, for it does not necessarily reflect the values of the Iowan Citizenry but the ideas of their representatives, and that is a perfectly acceptable idea in a Republic -- indeed it is the embodiment of the idea of the Republic -- but when some representatives feel an idea is important enough to go directly to the populace for decision, and other representatives deny that option to the populace, the people must demand that reasons outside of partisan politics be given for such blocking actions or for the vote to continue as requested.



This is my opinion, take it or leave it. I have laid out my logic, and presented my conclusions. I side with that which defines America, the unstoppable force that can move the immovable object, and that fuels the very existence of our Nation.