CelticBear’s Musings

The blog “Classically Liberal” has a post regarding referendums in Massachusetts regarding their same-sex marriage law:
<> Applause for Massachusetts! The hook for Romney.
He discusses how the supporters for overturning and banning same-sex marriage laws want a general vote of the issue of what’s fair for other human beings. I like this take:

The argument has been that the public should vote, it’s only fair. Why? Why is it fair for majorities to vote on whether or not minorities should have the same rights as them? Should a town with a majority population of fundamentalist Baptists be allowed a vote on whether Catholic marriages would be recognized? When it comes to equality before the law, on any issue, is it ever proper for the majority to have the opportunity to deny this equality of rights to a minority? Could a majority white state deny rights to black people? O’Malley’s political lobbying statement would seem to indicate he’d support that.

And that brings me to this article on The Friendly Atheist:
<> Christians Won Court Case; Now Upset About Aftermath
He talks about a case of a school that was forced under pressure by a Religious Right group to be allowed to send home with kids religious based information under the auspice of “being fair.” However, now pagan and atheist groups are using this ruling to also send their materials home from school as well–and the religious Right don’t like that.
(Another good article on this issue:
<> Backpack Blowback: Religious Right Activists Want Preferential Treatment From Public School Forum They Created)

So the question is who decides what’s “fair”? How in a democracy do we decide fairness for all people? Is voting not the proper, democratic way? But isn’t that inherently unfair when deciding things for the minority, as discussed above?
One answer, from a legal point of view, is not to make ANY laws regarding how people live their lives. (Aside, obviously, for behaviors that harm others such as murder, robbery, etc.) Why make any laws regarding marriage, for example, unless it’s to control behavior some people with political clout dislikes? Personally, I couldn’t care less if someone has multiple wives (or husbands) assuming it’s completely consensual. (Some of these fanatic Mormon cult-like marriages absolutely fall outside of consensual decisions, especially the cases when teens are being forced to marry men not of their choosing, etc.) There was a time when people of mixed races were legally prevented from marrying. That was a result of religiously pressured political maneuvers. Shouldn’t that be avoided? Shouldn’t that not even be a possibility, legalizing and criminalizing behavior that doesn’t harm or even affect another person outside of the consensual decisions of those directly involved?