Comments about ‘If you don't win, it doesn't mean your rights have been trampled on’

So brilliantly stated. I really appreciated this article. Anarchy, certainly. And the country seems to be going in a dangerous direction when they feel they have a "right" to win.

Such a wise man.

If I understand you correctly, whenever any group feels the need or desire to participate in the democratic process and have a goal worthy of pursuing, they should give up and go spend the next century in isolation if they don't win their prize quickly and easily.

Efforts that should have died quickly: American independence, emancipating the slaves, women's suffrage, establishing voting and civil rights for all citizens regardless of race.

By inference, do I now understand correctly that with two electoral drubbings in a row and the humiliation that comes with an ideologically fractured movement now scattered in shards with no cohesion or figurehead, that the previously Grand Old Party (Republicans) will now wander into the desert to exsanguinate the vile humors and let groups with workable programs rule for the foreseeable future?

What a noble period lies ahead for this country! Perhaps enough time to rebuild the damage of the last 30 years.

I'd amend the title of Mr. Sowell's op-ed to read: "doesn't NECESSARILY mean your righrs have been trampled on...but then again, it might."

In this case, it does.

The highest court in California had ruled that gay couples had a fundamental right to marry, under the equal protection clause.

The voters removed that right.

It's at best disingenuous to pretend that someone who has a fundamental right taken away should simply give up and give in.

We have a system of governance designed to protect unpopular minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". That's what this case is about.

And no one, including blacks or members of the LDS church, should feel comforted by that simply because they like the result this time.

Next time, they may be the unpopular minority whose rights have been removed by "the People".

Just because the Kalifornia Supreme Court declares that gays have a right to be married doesn't necessarily make it so. Marriage throughout time has been defined as a relationship between opposite sexes. Gays wish to change that definition, and with the assistance of the court, they succeeded for a time. That was a "manufactured" right, not a true, civil right.

The voters corrected that error by the court. Of course, the court may attempt to intervene once again.

To Hidden Message: I didn't see anyting in Mr. Sowell's piece that suggested those who didn't get the outcome they wanted should just quit and go home. What I did see was that threats and attempts at intimidation were wrong. You lost, get over it. If you want to continue in your cause do it in a manner that reflects well upon you and your cause. Keep working. What I am seeing is a bunch of spoiled, entitled brats. Not the kind of people I'm enclined to support, or even listen to.

Sowell has it exactly right. Hard to dispute.

I understand the venting of frustration, and I understand the the gay community believes in their cause as a case of civil rights. What I don't understand is how intimidation and scare tactics will aid in people changing their minds. Or is it just a case of Machiavell's "the ends justify the means". Do they want their cause to win someday because I'm afraid for my children's safety. I've never been a homophobe, until these past two weeks. I truly cried when Obama won because of what he said about our Constitution. His own words, no pundits, but I am trying to talk to people who voted for him to gain some kind of understanding for why. That doesn't mean I give up on what I believe, but scaring people who feel differently is not the answer.

funny how once again Mr. Sowell and other conservative commentators cannot use this same logic to reflect on the childish language and behaviors during the election when it did not look good for their candidate or after McCain lost. Its easy to find fault in others but hard to recognize in ourselves. At least McCain acted like a statesman.

how ironic and sad that Mr. Sewell would see fit to disparage the civil rights movements since he has clearly been such a beneficiary of it. Does Mr. Sewell really believe he would have been allowed by the white power structure at the time would have allowed him to ascend to where he is now (regardless of how smart and deserving) if it where not for the civil rights movement? To stand by and let other fight for your rights then disparage them seems a little sick.

To Hidden Message: If this and other similar issues are simply about the "unpopular minority," where does it end? Consensual sex between a minor and an adult? Who determines who is an adult? Is bestiality OK? Gays may do what they please in the privacy of their homes, but marriage wasn't ordained for two people of the same sex. Many times the majority is correct.

"Hidden Message" provides a perfect example of just what Mr. Sowell was talking about. Our vastly superior intellectuals can find hidden meanings while being oblivious to the real content of the message.

sad

How did he disparage the civil rights movement? Because he talks about the belief of entitlement beyond given rights. Have we overcome the stigma of color, appearently not. You question his accomplishments only by color as if he was currently "allowed to achieve" because of the civil rights movement. Your world is still colored. The civil rights movement was an effort to remove color as an issue. Some used the civil rights movement to gain power and use the cover of civil rights to further their own special interests.

To paraphrase Dr. Sowell's own literary construction: he makes points that sound plausible until one thinks too much about them.

For example: the "right to win" has always been part of the American mythos. I am not saying that there such a thing as a "right to win", only that Americans throughout history have believed there is whenever a cause stirs their passions. When the "Founding Fathers" rebelled, they evoked the notions of "natural rights", and even "divine rights."

Another example: Manifest Destiny

Another example: The Suffrage Movement

Another example: The Civil Rights Movement

Another example: The "Ku Klux Klan" and its defense of "traditional Southern society", as they put it.

Another example: The Temperance Movement

Another exmaple: Robber Barons

Another example: WWII and the subsequent Cold War

So whatever one's feelings about Proposition 8, to say that this "right to win" mentality first appeared in The 1960's (cue spooky music--Doc Sowell HATES the '60s and blames the decade for all that ails society) demonstrates serious ignorance of American history. Or it demonstrates a serious bias towards a socially conservative explanation of American history. Knowing that Dr. Sowell is a Standford professor, I'd bet on the latter.

'And no one, including blacks or members of the LDS church, should feel comforted by that simply because they like the result this time.

Next time, they may be the unpopular minority whose rights have been removed by "the People".'

These things have already happened. (Think Jim Crow Laws and the extermination order from MO where all their lands and property were then free game for the mob to claim.) Both these groups, black, and Mormons, have spent ALL of their existence in the US as the minority. One minority (homosexuals) threatening the rights and privledges of another (blacks and Mormons) is juvenile at best and criminal at worst. You are welcome to work for a different outcome through peaceful and acceptable means (lawsuits, protests that actually HAVE a permit), but harassing peaceful people in their places of worship is like a 3 year old having a tantrum. You'll get noticed, but more likely get your message will be ignored until you control your emotions and can communicate like a grown up.

@Hidden Message: "If I understand you correctly...."

You don't.

To return to Dr Sowell's premise: too many sore losers in the recent election. I'll say. Immediately the results were known, a veritable flock of Chicken Littles ran to their computers, logged on to message boards everywhere, and proclaimed that the sky is falling in! They were joined by Turkey Lurkey, Duckey Lucky, and many others: the sky is falling in! The socialist hoards that were at the gate have breached the wall and they are taking over! Let us run to tell the king! Funny, Dr Sowell doesn't talk about these folks.

Losing a vote has nothing to do with trampled on rights. When lies were spread by groups donating large sums of money, the validity of the vtre is soiled. The question arises, would they vote had won if votes hadn't been lied too?

What if voters had voted to overturn gun rights? Sure the court become involved. Should the court be able to cast off the will of the voter?

The best thing, in a perfect world, would be to let voters overturn Prop 8 in two years. This would remove the will of the majority argument.

The courts have said the Constitution says we have the right to carry guns. The Constituion contains a way to change that. It is called an ammendment. I think the voters in California just ammended their constitution. Maybe they can change it back, but I doubt that holding their breath until they turn blue, and other equally childish behavior will get the job done.

Excellent article. Well stated and explained. I, too, have lost a lot of respect for the people I have seen in the gay and lesbian community. It is sad that is has come to this in this great country. Hopefully we can all do better!

[Anonymous | 11:47 a.m.] said...
"Losing a vote has nothing to do with trampled on rights. When lies were spread by groups donating large sums of money, the validity of the vtre is soiled".

Is he talking about all the millions donated to the Obama campaign???