As is commonly analogized, Brown is like a self-contained bubble, set apart from Providence and its people. This bubble does much to sequester students from the realities of the outside world. Though some lament the bubble's tendency to insulate Brunonians from the pitfalls of urban living, little is said about the insulating effect from majority political points of view.
On no other topic is this seen more clearly than on the issue of gay marriage. Opponents of gay marriage, no matter how principled, are belittled and ostracized by students. A search of the Herald website for the phrase "gay marriage" reveals over 100 results, all slanted, not surprisingly, to the same pro-gay marriage conclusion. One, Sarah Rosenthal's '11 Nov. 13, 2008, column, "No on Yes on Prop 8," attributes opposition to gay marriage to baseless hate. Another gem, Susannah Kroeber's '11 "Rejected 31 times over," (Nov. 6, 2009) advocates that acceptance of gay marriage be forced upon the unwilling majority of Americans.
This is precisely what happened in microcosm with the striking down of the California Marriage Protection Act by a federal court this past August. The people of California had spoken. By popular vote, they had elected to turn the wheels of democracy in favor of traditional marriage. Both sides of the debate had raised millions of dollars and presented their positions to the public. The voters weighed the evidence, made up their minds and voiced their opinions at the ballot box. This was democracy in action. The presumptive coup de grace to a debate that had pitted the people of California against their government had finally been dealt.
Then, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, seemingly echoing Brown students, declared California's law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, citing a lack of legitimacy given its basis in "private moral(s)".
Though this conclusion was lauded by Brunonians on Facebook and in conversation, the U.S. Constitution says nothing of marriage — gay or otherwise. And Walker's argument against the law's basis is intellectually dishonest given the fact that many prohibitions that pass constitutional muster are based in "private morals." Laws ranging from prohibitions of obscenity and polygamy to the restriction of marriage to living adult humans are all instances of "private morality" made public. These laws, like the California Marriage Protection Act, are in keeping with government interests and have either gone unchallenged or been upheld by the courts.
In the absence of a federal law or constitutional amendment concerning a given issue, the Tenth Amendment gives the states and their citizens the right to control that issue. Walker's belief that the definition of marriage is "beyond the constitutional reach of the voters" is not grounded in constitutional fact. Laws against gay marriage are neither egregious nor unconstitutional.
Walker's decision to strike down the law was not about constitutionality, but rather about his own urge to castigate the people of California for their "antiquated" morality. Walker failed to realize that gay marriage is wrong for California, not because of the Bible but because the people of California said so. Love or hate gay marriage, voters had arrived at a conclusion that should have been respected and irrevocable.
Had the referendum that enacted the California Marriage Protection Act been decided differently, the people's decision would still deserve the government's respect. Walker's disregard for majority points of view and the flippant nature of his dismissal of the will of the people are echoed in Brown students' treatment of the issue of gay marriage.
Despite Brown's political leanings, we Ivy Leaguers, the leaders of tomorrow, should be wary of the government's unresponsiveness to the demands of the people. Political stunts to protect minority "rights" leave the majority at once dispossessed of the right to control their government. All instances of judicial activism are but links in a chain wrapped around the windpipe of our democracy, separating the people from their power.
As a community, we stand at a crossroads: to be like Judge Walker and remain in a single-minded political malaise, or to engage in dialogue with the broader America and accept the possible validity of viewpoints that run counter to our own. Though this may be difficult at first, it is necessary, as our liberal education requires a respect for all perspectives, even those that fall within the mainstream. In this new scholastic year, we must strive to burst the Brown bubble's hold on our minds.
Terrence George '13 is an agent of radical Middle America.
