Anderson & Girgis: Marriage and the New York Times’ Fear of Democracy


Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis in National Review Online:

Ever since the rise of the progressive movement, the American Left has championed political reforms to create direct democracy: ballot initiatives, popular referenda, direct election of senators, and recall initiatives. But now, apparently, there are exceptions. They favor direct democracy  . . . except when they don’t like the result. Then they turn to rule by enlightened overseers.

There is no other way to explain the odd editorial in Tuesday’s New York Times, one week before citizens in Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, and Maine consider ballot questions on marriage.

... When popular votes in 32 of 32 states go against you, you start taking a low view of democracy. Better to place your hopes with five of nine unelected justices of the Supreme Court.

A few more points. Next week’s votes on marriage are not about banning anything. Nothing will be made illegal as a result. In all 50 states, two men or two women can live together, have their religious community bless their union, and have their workplace offer them various joint benefits, if the religious communities and workplaces in question so desire. Many liberal houses of worship and progressive businesses voluntarily have decided to do so.

There’s nothing illegal about this; there’s no ban on it. What’s at issue is whether the government will recognize such unions as marriages — and then force every citizen and business to do so as well. This isn’t the legalization of something, but the coercion of others to affirm same-sex relationships as marriages.

Their entire essay is well worth reading!

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.