Civil Rights Issues Should Not Be Put to a Popular Vote

[lissener]

@Miller

If you asked me what the most important social issue currently facing the US is, I’d say “gay rights” in a heartbeat. But if the only way to get gay rights is to give up democracy, you’re going to have to count me out. Having the People decide on the rights of a minority does, quite often, suck gigantic donkey balls. But it beats the hell out of having one Person decide on the rights of a minority, because the odds of that one person being someone I personally agree with are mighty fucking slim.

I mean, if you’re going to say, “This thing is something that’s beyond democracy. This is something we don’t get to vote on,” then you’re going to have to figure out who does get to make a call on that. How do you decide who makes that call? How do you make sure that he’s going to make the call you want, and not the call your worst enemy wants? How do you make sure the person who makes that call is not, in fact, your worst enemy?

I’m sorry, Miller, we usually see eye to eye on such issues, but this time you’re just wrong. The Bill of Rights protects minorities from the Tyranny of the Majority. The Constitution is the product of a representative democracy. The OP is suggesting we do away with democracy, he’s suggesting we uphold our democratic principles of certain inalienable rights. Inalienable is inalienable, even if someone gets a bunch of rednecks to sign a petition.

[2sense]

@John_Mace

I don’t understand the confusion. It gives a direct answer to the OP’s question:

Sure, you can ensure that the people never vote on civil rights issues, so long as you are willing do so by undemocratic means.

Which is pretty much what I said in my first post, and **Miller **said in his, and which you’ve been challenging.

Perhaps the confusion began with me when I misunderstood the main thrust of the OP but it persisted when you didn’t read my words carefully enough. My point to Miller was that he was conflating direct with representative democracy which the OP did not address. And as I’ve said, I think the question of the OP’s is whether or not questions of civil rights should be put to a direct vote of the populace. Arguments concerning methods for preventing this from happening, even one so concise and reasonable as yours, simply do not address that question. Concerning those methods, again I don’t try to refute your argument. But pursuing constitutional change could be a successful strategy even if it is not a perfect one.