I was listening to Levin go off on the court decision overturning California Proposition 8 and in his attempt at belittling a caller almost started explaining a moral equivalency against slavery and gay marriage. Unfortunately he was saved by commercial interruption – thus missing the opportunity to sound really stupid – before going on to ask his caller what right the court had to overturn Proposition 8, ignore any response, and hang up on him.
So on to what Levin “almost” said.
From Levin’s comments, you get the sense that he is not an advocate of gay rights and considers it morally wrong. He supported Prop 8 because it fits with his view of the world. In setting up his argument against the caller, he suggested that both slavery and homosexuality are morally wrong and therefore the people have a right and obligation to express their outrage, disgust, repression, etc.
Does it strike anyone else that in both cases we have the will of the majority repressing the rights of the minority? It’s nice that Levin found slavery morally wrong – and it’s relatively easy to be against it 145 years after it was done away with. No such luck on the gay rights discussion.
Moving on to the legal basis for doing away with Prop 8.
Levin took huge issue with the use of the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause as the basis for overturning Prop 8. His argument was that the will of the people – those that voted for Prop 8 – should prevail. Levin then goes on to cite Dred Scot and Plessy v. Ferguson as bad court decisions. The irony – apparently lost on him – is that these were court cases the 14th amendment was designed to address and was intended to eliminate the kind of discrimination exhibited by Prop 8.
