I've long criticized Andrew Sullivan and Chris Crain and others who insist that legalizing same-sex marriage by legislation rather than "judicial fiat" is the best way to go. One of Ed Brayton's readers at Dispatches from the Culture Wars pointed out something that, I'm ashamed to say, I never thought of:
I'm happy to see this progress, but in some ways it worries me. What voters give they can just as easily take away; think about that before you start crowing too loudly about the superiority of legislative to judicial redress. Jim Crow laws and the tax laws restricting marijuana use, growth, and sale all passed with wide margins and even wider public support. The whole value of the Bill of Rights is that it states that those rights outlined, and many more not mentioned, are inherent to the individual; if the individual's rights are to be determined by legislative fiat, how secure are they really?
That's it, really. The point that the legislative process faction misses is that legislators are in theory accountable for their actions, but only in theory. We've seen too readily recently how voters will blindly follow what they're told rather than what they can see, and when that ideal comes up against reality -- well, it ain't pretty.
Let's face it -- most of us don't know what our representatives are up to on a day-to-day basis, and would probably be appalled to find out. And it's never a straight up vote on the merits -- it's always deal-making and horse-trading. Add in lobbyists and pressure groups, and you've got quite a mix, no?
It's odd to me that someone can rail against lawmakers' susceptibility to special interests (especially special interests with lots of cash) and still maintain that the legislature is the way to go on issues affecting fundamental rights.
Huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment