See Update: below.
I see significant danger if this argument is supported in court.
Arguing for Prop. 8, Ken Starr says any right can be taken
Famed Clinton prosecutor believes even free speech may be revoked by simple majority vote
California's battle over same-sex marriage went before the state's highest court Thursday, with civil rights lawyers seeking to overturn a voter-approved ban on gay weddings.
But it was Ken Starr, best known for prosecuting President Bill Clinton, who stole the show on Thursday after leveling an argument that a simple majority vote is enough to remove any right from a minority group.
The people "have the raw power to define rights," he told the court while arguing in favor of invalidating over 18,000 marriages.
"The right of the people is inalienable to change their constitution through the amendment process," said Starr. "The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle."
http://rawstory.com/...
This is about as dangerous an argument for our fundamental rights as I've ever seen. Not just rights for the gay community, but rights for anyone who has been oppressed by the majority.
For example, if this argument were supported by the courts, racists in the south could pass a law making it legal to torture and kill black people. They could make it legal for lynchings, KKK kidnappings, and cross burnings to NOT be prosecuted.
In my state, where the disabled are the segment of society discriminated against, they could vote to make it legal to force us to work despite severe disabilities that prevent it, deny us equal protection in housing, employment, and other activities, turn us into LEGAL second class citizens, etc.
How does this argument prevent slavery? Couldn't the majority in some area within the US just vote to enslave a despised class and proceed to deny all rights?
I agree that the majority has voting rights to do just about anything, but I draw the line at the right of the majority to remove human status from a segment of the population.
I'd like to see the comments of others on this issue.
Update: In the many comments the point has been raised that Federal law would provide protection if the California Constitution were to limit rights. There are a number of issues I see related to this that still present a problem. First, if rights are abridged based on majority vote, an individual or group must litigate to regain them through the Federal Courts. If this issue were to go to the US Supreme Court and be allowed to stand, it would subsequently undermine rights of individuals in further California actions like these implemented through simple majority vote until the matter can be litigated. Ken Starr says it also applies to free speech, and although the constitution protects free speech, when the two laws are in conflict litigation is required. This forces individuals who ALREADY have their rights guaranteed by the US Constitution to litigate to get them restored because California has attempted to limit their rights through a majority vote. Given the matter would require further litigation, the possibility exists that rights could be limited even though currently guaranteed.
I still see this argument as dangerous for our protected rights.