Thanks for your response, Don. You ask if Loving was wrong because it contradicted the will of the people as ascertained by opinion polls. That is a good analogy to Obergefell in that it relates to the ability of a couple to enjoy the legal status of marriage contrary to applicable statutory enactments. Based on pure speculation, I imagine a similar debate probably occurred at the time between those who felt it was improper for the court to overturn enactments by the people's elected officials on the basis of the discovery, by unelected, unaccountable judges, of newly discovered constitutional rights. Those in favor would have felt that the appointment of justices by elected presidents and their vetting by elected senators was sufficient "representation" of the people to legitimize the intervention. There is also a belief, in the "liberal" tradition, that Supreme Court judges are experts in discerning the underlying "natural laws" that serve as a control on all other laws. Our other cultural traditions dispute the court's special expertise compared to the people's representatives assembled for deliberation.
We don't know what would have happened if there had been no Supreme Court decision. I'm not aware of any widespread feeling that Loving was a major violation of states' rights and the people's rights of self-government. You may be correct that this decision will eventually fade as an item of urgency. People will continue to associate, or not, with gay couples as they prefer, just as they self-segregate, or not, with respect to race. Civil society goes its way regardless of legal pronouncements. I do think violation of people's concept of self-government has a cost. It's a cost, as you indicate, that groups of cultural traditions impose on other traditions. Some groups feel that it's OK to shove some of their bad feelings on to other shoulders. Why not? I expect people to demand more self-government in the face of the many assaults on it, and if that spreads to economic and environmental issues as well as cultural, things could get interesting.
It's interesting that you say the gay conflict will fade. What is the anti-bullying movement based on? Are younger generations actually more homophobic than older generations? I remember a couple of outbursts of persecution in early years that were more like dog pack behavior, shutting off as quickly as they were turned on.
You are speculating in various areas I did not discuss. Sorry if I don't have much to add. Weighing the desires and harms to different groups is classically the role of legislators, not courts. Courts are supposed to declare the law, and in these cases say, this law is or is not contrary to the Constitution. Weighing group interests is a totally different process for which legal training provides no tools.
To respond to your historical thoughts, as I understand Spengler, a guide in many areas, there is a deconstructive inspiration in Western Faustian civilization. Exacerbating the tension between modernity and tradition and between law and morality, and even between cultural factions within a society, may be consistent with Western destiny. The rhetoric of equality is more pre-Western, leveling individuals under the dome of the One True Whatever, striving for what Spengler calls the Aramaean consensus. The reality, to a Westerner, is more atomizing and ironizing, deconstructing the dome into its constituents. We'll see if anything comes of it. Cheers, Bill
Charlie, "yellow peril" reflects the White American view of the Chinese, beginning with large-scale immigration in the 19th century, as menacing, prolific heathens with revolting customs. I believe the disgust was reciprocated.
|