Error of the Day: "The People have spoken!"

[Scottgun]

I’ve heard several conservative Catholics cry, “the people have spoken!” in triumph of the passage of Proposition 8 that adds to California’s constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

I’m fully sympathetic to this victory which reaffirms that people are still largely unwilling to sign on to a legal fiction, but it is still the old error of Truth-by-majority-rule. Suppose the vote went the other way. Would we hear “the people have spoken!” from conservatives then? Perhaps without the exclamation point? I’m not encouraged when I have heard more than one conservative Catholic advocate the fallback position that homosexual civil unions are acceptable as long as you don’t call it marriage. To the best of my knowledge, this is unacceptable as well. First, let’s look at legal abortion and the Church’s teaching about the correct response to it. From Evangelium Vitae:
Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

Now read the CDF’s Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons:In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.The language is identical and several conclusions seem inescapable: Like abortion laws, laws permitting homosexual unions are unjust (and note there is no truck with magic word-games between “union” and “marriage” or anything else), no society can legitimately enact such laws, and the people have a duty to oppose their enacting and legal status (this, incidentally, is why the “personally opposed” doctrine is a load of buffalo biscuits). While there is an allowance for so-called incrementalism–that is, supporting restrictions on these laws in order to limit the harm–it must be understood that the legal status remains unjust and that our opposition remains clear and unequivocal. Also note that there is no disclaimer in either document saying, “applies only in confessionally Catholic countries”. Thus, the pluralism argument is bogus as well.

To reiterate, while it is fine to be pleased that “the people have spoken!” when they reaffirm truth, we must recall that truth is truth whether 51% of the people vote for it or 100% vote against it. To modernize a quote from A Man for all Seasons: If the world is round, will the people’s vote flatten it? No. We will not sign.

 

[quiet52]

We can rejoice when the People have spoken correctly, according to God’s will … and not, when they speak against Him.
Look at what has happened since Humanae Vitae – how many priests caved in to “Vox Populi” – the voice of the people – and decided that this encyclical is inapplicable.

 

[KingAlfred]

No gay marriage.

 

[AgingCatholic]

I have to admit, I find the prop 8 situation in California morally murky. As Catholics, we do not hold that the end justifies the means. I actually find the legal arguments looking to overturn prop 8 pretty compelling. It is always a dangerous thing when individual rights hinge on majority rule.

The In 2002 the CDF noted that the Church recognizes that democracy is the best form of government for providing a collective voice to the people. But went on to note that no government is legitimate if it does not recognize the inalienable rights of the human person (as defined by the Second Vatican Council). As imperfect as it is, our constitutional system, and the courts that enforce it is the primary mechanism of recognizing and protecting the rights of the individual regardless of political popularity.

Rather we like the results or not, allowing a constitution to be revised by simple majority vote is a tad scary. Catholics would do well to remember that for most of US history, we have been a disliked minority ourselves.

This does not mean that we can turn our backs on our moral obligations, but we have to pursue them using moral means. We also need to be careful not to condense them down to what we can comfortably handle. It is important to remember that same sex marriages represent the same attack on the Family and the Sacrament of Marriage as modern secular laws concerning divorce.

If you were willing to hold up signs supporting prop 8, but did not speak out about, say, Cindy McCain and what her ‘marriage’ represents, you were limiting yourself to upholding the principle when it was easy, not when it was hard.

 

[quiet52]

I have to admit, I find the prop 8 situation in California morally murky. As Catholics, we do not hold that the end justifies the means. I actually find the legal arguments looking to overturn prop 8 pretty compelling. It is always a dangerous thing when individual rights hinge on majority rule.

The In 2002 the CDF noted that the Church recognizes that democracy is the best form of government for providing a collective voice to the people. But went on to note that no government is legitimate if it does not recognize the inalienable rights of the human person (as defined by the Second Vatican Council). As imperfect as it is, our constitutional system, and the courts that enforce it is the primary mechanism of recognizing and protecting the rights of the individual regardless of political popularity.

Rather we like the results or not, allowing a constitution to be revised by simple majority vote is a tad scary. Catholics would do well to remember that for most of US history, we have been a disliked minority ourselves.

This does not mean that we can turn our backs on our moral obligations, but we have to pursue them using moral means. We also need to be careful not to condense them down to what we can comfortably handle. It is important to remember that same sex marriages represent the same attack on the Family and the Sacrament of Marriage as modern secular laws concerning divorce.

If you were willing to hold up signs supporting prop 8, but did not speak out about, say, Cindy McCain and what her ‘marriage’ represents, you were limiting yourself to upholding the principle when it was easy, not when it was hard.

You find not allowing people of the same gender morally murky?

I’m pretty darn-tootin’ glad that the U.S. Constitution was amended in 1865 and we have the 13th Amendment to prohibit slavery.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[AgingCatholic]

You find not allowing people of the same gender morally murky?

I’m pretty darn-tootin’ glad that the U.S. Constitution was amended in 1865 and we have the 13th Amendment to prohibit slavery.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

You seem to miss the point, the issue is not rather constitutions should be amendable, but rather they should be so with simple majority.

The California Supreme Court already ruled on a specific section of their constitution. Prop 8 alters the wording of that specific section. The question before the court will be, does this constitute and amendment, or a revision? An amendment requires only a simple majority, but a revision, like a change to the US constitution, has a higher bar - starting with the need to pass the state legislature.

You may recall that the 13th amendment to the US Constitution did not initially pass the house of representatives, nor was passage in the remaining slave states easy. If one’s mindset is ‘the end justifies the means’, then the principle I’m raising does not matter.

But if one is concerned with constitutional protection and society’s obligation to the inalienable rights of the individual, it matters. Consider, the Republican brand is currently less popular than a french kiss at a family reunion, with a nearly 60%+ disapproval rating. Would it be correct for the simple majority to alter state constitutions to start robbing Republicans of rights?

This should particularly matter to US Catholics. Although we have reached roughly 1/4 of the population, more than 40% of the US population does not believe that we are a legitimate Christian religion. In the wake of the sexual abuse scandals, the Church’s public approval rating looked a lot like the GOP’s. In the same narrow geographic region where the GOP actually made affiliation gains this cycle, we actually saw a number of measures (all under the guise of protecting children) that would have curtailed our freedom of religion (something Rome has identified as a “fundamental moral principle”)

Bringing up slavery is also an interesting example, since the Evangelical objections to gay unions are generally framed on a biblical basis. However, Leviticus and Exodus, both used in the ‘no gay’ argument, also declare that slavery is licit in specific cases.

The Catholic argument against gay unions is more nuanced. We view gay marriage as being closely akin to secular divorce. Both erode the Sacrament of Marriage and attack the Family. Like our belief on right to life, I find this position a lot more morally consistent than the Evangelical one.