A moral majority protects the minority.

by: Reverend Keith Bennett

Reference: Discussion 1 to Meditation 1036: The people of California voted against it

The “will of the people” must be checked. Imagine if the people of a state voted to reinstitute slavery or decided that women of that state no longer had the right to vote. Would you
still agree that the “will of the people” should be allowed to dictate laws?

I wrote an article a while back that seems apropos
to this discussion about what a moral majority should be. Basically I stated that a moral majority protects the minority. In the case of the California vote*, the majority (heterosexuals) voted to suppress the minority (homosexuals). Clearly, the majority of Californians that passed that proposal (a whopping 52.24%) were not acting morally.

Yes, our country was founded on a “by the people,
for the people” doctrine and yes, the will of the people needs to be heard. However, it was also founded on a “checks and balances” doctrine and
the will of the people sometimes needs to be checked.

DISCUSSION 4 >

NOTE:

* Since this discussion is about same sex marriage, I assume you are referring to California’s Proposition 8 vote which provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”.