"Sometimes people get frightened at the speed of its progress; despairing of stopping its motion, men seek at least to put obstacles and difficulties in its way; there is an attempt to balance its actions by measures of opposite tendency. But all in vain! It grinds up and smashes everything that stands in its way and everything is reduced to a fine, impalpable dust, and that dust is the foundation for democracies."
-Alexis de Tocqueville
Hello. My name is Catherine Kozak, and I live with Heather Blandford. I believe, as I am sure most Americans do, that democracy is an essential component to both our government and cultural identity. There are those who embrace it and its speeding, churning, changing energy, and those, as Tocqueville foresees, who fight against it blindly, misconstruing it as a cultural vice. One way or the other, its proud tradition is being challenged and utilized in the struggle for gay rights, although not in the manner Blandford would have you suppose.
I protest Blandford's repeated misuse of the word undemocratic. Is it not one of the most democratic actions a citizen can take: to lobby in a peaceful and proactive manner for rights unjustly being withheld without tangible legal grounds? Unlike Blandford would have you believe, the California state Constitution does not define marriage as solely between a man and woman; it was only through a highly-contested 2000 Limit On Marriage Initiative that selectively amended the bounds of marriage. Several cases have arisen challenging the initiative's invasion of privacy and violation of Equal Protection rights. Far from being merely a political antic, it was for this reason that the San Francisco mayor refused to deny same-sex marriages.
Nonetheless, Blandford dares allege that discrimination is not an issue in the case of gay rights. A homosexual has the right to own property, to vote, to have equal protection under the law and exercise all the rights our democratic political process has secured -except marry. The refusal to allow homosexuals the right to marry a person whom they love is based on nothing more than the fact that the person is of the same sex. It is this which makes gay rights artificial in Blandford's mind. And so, she bemoans, we shall have to depend on the decision of the un-elected courts.
Here, she seems to forget that democracy is supposed to be responsive to the majority without being unresponsive to the minority. It would be utterly undemocratic to not check the whims of the majority and let the minority be subverted to its rule without recourse: that is called mob rule. The recourse of the minority is the judicial branch. The courts were created in our republican system of government specifically to keep the law created by the people's representatives just and fair. Let the legislative and executive branches be held accountable to the people; let the courts protect all the people, whether they are of the majority or not.
Blandford states she wishes to safeguard against judicial activism. What she means is that, in light of the refusal of the courts thus far to legally chastise Mayor Gavin Newsom, she will view any formal decision by the courts to advocate gay marriage as judicial activism rather than upholding the Constitution and protecting minority rights. I wonder, should Congress continue to refuse to amend the national Constitution - should they some day in the future decide to accept gay marriage on a national level - will she write it off as nothing more than legislative activism?
Since Mayor Newsom's decision to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex, 2,400 gay and lesbian couples have been married in San Francisco. Is loving someone and desiring to wed them illegal? No. Is wanting the benefits and social proclamation of marriage wrong? No. The state does not have the right to intrude upon the personal and private life of any individual unless that life has been violated in an unlawful manner. Nor does it have the right to deny rights to certain people on an arbitrary basis.
Blandford claims that the house that gay marriage built is one built on sand. I argue that it is not built on sand, but on dust: the dust that is the foundation of democracy. I not only support democracy, but complete and fair political process. I support the right of any individual to lobby for any right he/she is being unjustly denied. I support the freedoms of speech, religion, and to love whomever one chooses, whether of same or different color, religion and/or sex. And I don't think that the citizens opinions should judge these rights. The law should judge them and should protect them.
In sum, I love you, Heather, but I don't agree with you.
Catherine Kozak is a sophomore in the School of International Service.
