The Ultimate Hypocrisy

It was last week when the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal against the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage. This was by no means surprising to any of the rational thinking observers. Although, people on both sides of the debate would probably like to hear some commentary from the Justices, if only to get some indication or comfort. However the appeal was rejected without a comment, leaving the parties involved in the decision to reorganize and strategize.
However the White House was quick to offer their response to the decision. Unfortunately there was nothing new in it, as they repeated the same line again. The white house press-secretary announced (with very sincere tone) the well-rehearsed statement about ensuring that the “voice of the people” is heard and the decision is not left to those crazy “activist judges”
It makes me wonder how many times do they need to repeat this for people to accept it as something self-evident. They are undoubtedly the masters of shaping perceptions and creating ambiguous social views. We all remember the “death tax”, “tax relief” or PATRIOT act. Nonetheless the hypocrisy is so evident in this case that it is almost unbearable to hear.
One should ask why by the “voice of the people” they are only referring one group of the population and seem to completely ignore the other group that supports the developments in Massachusetts. Somehow the voice of those people does not have any significance in their view. This proves once again that in addressing the “citizens” the administration is clearly talking to the “base”. There is no way to explain the blunt contradiction of their message, especially in reference to “activist judges”. Under their definition the history is full with examples of judicial activism. It often resulted in quite controversial decisions (some argued that Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 was a perfect example of judicial activism, so the irony is almost perfect here). But would they also call it activism the judicial decisions that ended segregation, discrimination or inequality on our society? It would be interesting to see those landmark decisions shrugged off as work of rogue “activist judges” (although I am sure many have done that).
The argument that the majority is against gay marriages is essentially irrelevant, as long as this is a civil rights issue. And there is no doubt the right to marry and take care of loved ones in life and make sure they are secure after one’s death is a an essential civil right. The majority was against de-segregation in the southern states that where in the center of the decisions mentioned above. Moreover the same majority was against racial equality in general. It doesn’t take much to imagine where we would be now if we would’ve followed the will of that majority.
Hence, the officials try to negate one of the true meanings of democracy where the minorities are protected against the tyranny of the majority. The government does what is right in principle and ensures the dignity and equality of all the citizens, regardless of the emotions, prejudices or discomfort of one group (even if it is the majority).
In any case this issue has also started a debate around the word “marriage” itself and it’s place in official state language. Some have proposed to move it completely to the religious domain and have “unions” for everyone. I would agree with this in principle and do believe it is the case in some other countries. However I am not sure whether it is better to change the word or try to clarify (or re-frame) it.
It also prompted revival of some older opinions about the reason for gays to marry at all (sarcastically speaking of’ course). Authors wonder if gays really want to go through he “misery” experienced by straight couples in marriage.
I am convinced that this is simply a matter of time (as selfish as it sound towards gays). The trends are going in that direction and as I explained earlier the fundamental principles of free society should leave no other alternative, but to recognize the self-evidence of these rights.