Two unjust laws, two great opinions, two great starts on the path of “justice for all.” As we know by now, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco has declared that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it violates key parts of the fourteenth amendment.
Earlier this month, the most horrendous parts of Arizona’s SB 1070 were blocked, thus preventing its implementation. Both opinions are being praised for their careful, logical, almost airtight legal reasoning. What this tells us is the following: we live in a country divided by hot moral issues yet when it comes time to addressing them we choose reason, we choose our laws. At least we do in court.
But nations are not made of courts, or legal experts. Nations are made of people, people with beliefs, people with differing opinions. While I am the first to value diversity of opinion, lately I have been confused by a group of people who hold a specific set of contradictory opinions.
Two months ago there was a large number of our citizens who were up in arms because of the actions that Arizona took and rightly so.
Today when those people heard that Proposition 8 had been overturned, those same people were upset and angry, bemoaning and condemning the decision. I do not understand.
These people are my people, churchgoers, minorities, immigrants, Hispanics. Why? Why is it that we can cry foul when Arizona passes tough immigration laws (which were on gray constitutional grounds) and be outraged when Proposition 8 is overturned (a law that was much more clearly unconstitutional)?
The comparison of the two laws provides us with a picture of the awesome power that a majority could wield, (in both cases the constitution declares that the majority overstepped an abused their power). In both cases there was a minority whose rights were trampled, and in both cases the courts took initial (key word) first steps to righting such wrong.
Legally, both cases violated some of the same constitutional tenets, (the fourteenth amendment, although SB 1070 was blocked mostly for violating the tenth). Most importantly, both opinions uphold our ideas of equality, rule of law, human dignity and universal justice.
But with all of this, there is a sizeable group of people that still support one decision and disavow the other. The same people who were enraged because Arizona was equating ‘humanness’ with ‘citizenship’ are now equating ‘marriage’ with ‘holy matrimony’.
This is the twisted logic that takes away rights away in Arizona and in California. But perhaps the disparity in opinion can be expressed this way: the people affected by SB 1070 looked liked us, or at least believed in the same things we did, lived a little bit more like us.
Maybe Rousseau’s analysis of empathy is correct: that we can only emphasize with those who are geographically and ethnically closer to us; and because of that “liberty” and “justice” could only be local words. Was he right?
Perhaps it is time for us to question whether we mean “justice for all” or just “justice for those who agree with me”, whether it is “all men are created equal” or “well some are not as equal as others because their belief system is not mainstream”. Perhaps it is time to prove Rousseau wrong. It can be done.
If we recognize that the struggles that minorities of all kinds undergo are more similar that we think, then it can be done. If we understand that our constitution is not designed to take away rights but to safeguard liberty, then it can be done.
But most importantly, it can be done if we mentally and actively welcome those who are different from us as fellow citizens, as children of God, as brothers and sisters of the same human race.
Only then will we become the nation where “liberty and justice for all” are not only everyday words, but everyday realities.