News-Record.com

Any public policy initiative criticized as "mean-spirited" by The New York Times is probably a good idea. Ask voters in California, who, on Election Day approved a ban on same-sex marriage. Proposition 8, approved by 52 percent of voters, was frowned upon by the enlightened editors of the Times. Either the paper's editorial board mischaracterized Proposition 8 or more than half of California voters are mean-spirited bigots. Rational observers must conclude that the former is true as the latter is false. The Times has demonstrated, once again, that on moral and cultural issues, editorial boards are reliably to the left of mainstream American opinion.

And so is Hollywood. Dozens of liberal luminaries threw resources into the effort to defeat Proposition 8. Steven Spielberg and Brad Pitt each contributed $100,000 to groups that endorse same-sex marriage. A partial list of intellectual heavyweights opposed to Proposition 8 includes Melissa Etheridge, Mary J. Blige, Barbra Streisand, Rob Reiner, Rosie O'Donnell, Madonna, Sean Penn, George Lucas, Bridget Fonda and Chelsea Handler. Perhaps this collection of scholars will establish a public policy think tank for the benefit of the rest of us.

Ellen DeGeneres used her talk show as a platform to criticize Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who favors a federal ban on gay marriage. "Maybe," DeGeneres said, "it's because I'm gay that I think we should all be equal. But I feel that we're all equal. People are gonna be who they're gonna be. And we need to learn to love them for who they are and let them love who they want to love." We can only wonder if DeGeneres loves Sarah Palin for who she is.

Opponents of Proposition 8 apparently did not receive DeGeneres' love-thy-neighbor memo. One of the biggest groups in opposition to Proposition 8 was called "Californians Against Hate" meaning, apparently, that those who support traditional marriage are engaged in "hate speech." Same-sex marriage enthusiasts carried placards and ran ads that said "Prop 8 = Prop Hate" and "Stop the Hate: Vote No on 8."

But if opposition to same-sex marriage is mean-spirited and hateful, the same must be said of a majority of voters in 30 states. When the people are allowed to speak, again and again, gay marriage is defeated at the polls. Same-sex marriage is legal only in two states -- Massachusetts and Connecticut -- and in both, it was imposed by judges.

Eight years ago, 61 percent of California voters approved a ban on gay marriage only to have their will disregarded by the state Supreme Court. The popular vote of two weeks ago will check that court's tyrannical abuse of power. On Nov. 4, voters in Florida and Arizona also approved bans on gay marriage, by margins wider than California's 4 percent: In Arizona, the vote was 57-43; in Florida, a whopping 62-38.

Evan Wolfson, a California gay-rights lawyer, told The Associated Press: "There's something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote. If this were being done to almost any other minority, people would see how un-American this is." Wolfson is evidently quite comfortable with judges imposing their views on the majority.

And most Americans reject the premise of Wolfson's remarks: that there is a "right" to same-sex marriage. California officials are mounting a legal challenge to the vote, arguing that Proposition 8 removes a "fundamental right" from gays and lesbians. But in order for Wolfson, Penn, DeGeneres and Streisand to be correct about that "right," all of our ancestors would have to be wrong. According to the champions of same-sex marriage, the collective wisdom of millennia pales in comparison to the profound philosophical insights of Rosie O'Donnell and Chelsea Handler. The hubris of same-sex marriage enthusiasts is incomprehensible.

There is nothing mean-spirited about opposition to same-sex marriage. In fact, most of us would support extending to gay and lesbian couples many of the rights traditionally associated with marriage: commingling of finances, hospital visitation and the like. Most defenders of traditional marriage are libertarian in regard to the gay and lesbian lifestyle, meaning we couldn't care less what our neighbors do in the privacy of their own homes.

But traditionalists in North Carolina and elsewhere should prepare themselves for the day when those neighbors -- Shelly and Suzy, or Bob and Bruce -- become public policy activists and sympathetic judges impose their "progressive" perspective on the majority. Because tolerance is a virtue often taken to extremes, North Carolina should reconsider its ban on statewide initiatives. The people need a means of checking judicial acts of aggression.

Charles Davenport Jr. (daisha99@msn.com) is a freelance columnist who appears alternate Sundays in the News & Record.