The passing of Proposition 8 in California banning same-sex marriages has left me in a quandary. I’m a proponent of gay marriage but also a firm believer in the democratic process. Since the voters of California have approved the ban, does that make it democratic and moral? There are strong arguments on both sides for each of these issues, and let me say that I haven’t entirely made up my mind; I raise them to elicit substantive discussion and provoke actionable thought. Let’s begin with considering whether the result is truly democratic.
On the surface, it seems fairly simple. The majority of voters, 52 percent in fact, voted for the ban. It seems that should resolve the question of democratic legitimacy. Yet what about those who didn’t vote? Democracy is an imperfect process. Yes, we can say that the “majority” of a population voted in favor of some measure, but how do we count the opinions of those eligible to vote yet didn’t? Those on the losing side of a ballot could reasonably argue that these people’s opinions matter, just that they didn’t exercise them.
Is exercise a prerequisite of having one’s opinion seen as having weight? Should the opinions of someone who has the right to free speech but never exercises that right be included? Those who say yes argue that just because there was no utilization of the right does not exclude that opinion on fiat; this makes some sense because such an exclusion could be seen as a disenfranchisement of those non-voters because their views, which have been deemed categorically valuable by the state via being given the right to vote, have been excluded. If this were true, the state’s consideration of voters would change based upon the voters’ utilization of their right, i.e. a person’s opinion would matter in an instance in which they voted, and not matter in which they didn’t. Yet by giving them the right to vote, the state implies that in every instance, the voter’s opinion matters.
So how do we resolve this crisis in which government seems to ignore the previously said to be worthy opinions of voters who didn’t vote? The answer is tacit consent. By having a choice and consciously rejecting making any choice at all, a voter essentially gives up their place in the democratic process for that one instance. In this way, if 52 percent of active voters approve a measure, it is democratically legitimate, even if, were the opinions of passive voters counted, it would reverse the result. Therefore, a result such as obtained in the vote on Proposition 8 is democratically legitimate.
Does that make it “moral,” though? There are many philosophies and thoughts on what constitutes morality and whether it even exists that I won’t touch, as it would be far too weighty and involved for a simple newspaper column. Also, more simply, I plead ignorance on these matters. Instead, I will focus on the political aspect of morality, whether something that is voted on and approved has then, by nature of the result, been made moral.
To do so we must consider the meanings of democracy and morality themselves (and bear in mind, I’m not a political science or philosophy major). Democracy is simply a word describing a political process and certain school of thought, that is, that the governed should have the only or primary voice in how they are governed. Morality is the notion that some action or result is “right,” or in keeping with whatever standards are used as a yardstick. Yet there is nothing special about the process of democracy, even its perfect practice in a theoretical world, which endows the end result with anything other than political legitimacy. Indeed, some form of democracy today, in my opinion, is seen as the best form of government only because of its utility to the governed. That makes it expedient, not “right.” Were democracy the “moral” or “right” form of government, and furthermore were it practiced perfectly, then there would be a strong argument for the result of a vote having absorbed some degree of “rightness.”
In the end, the result of the vote on Proposition 8 was democratically legitimate, but whether it is a moral decision or not and hence should be discussed or even overturned by the courts is a matter that will never be decided. This leaves us with another question: should we consider the morality issue a wash and agree with Proposition 8 because it is democratically legitimate, or should we continue to pursue, endlessly, the issue of whether it is a moral decision or not? If the decision were democratically legitimate but immoral, which should trump, legitimacy or justice?
John Jose is a junior finance and economics major. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].
