A response to “Vetoing Another’s Choices”

I would like to thank Susan for her response earlier today to the posting I made yesterday entitled “Religious Freedom and the Right to Be a Citizen.” I would like to know where she does and does not agree with me. As she said, “I agree with some of what Robert Araujo says in his post on religious freedom…” It is clear from what she has stated, however, that my statement, “How a person spends one’s resources on matters that are legally protected should not be the subject of another’s veto” raises a concern for her. I understand her point to be: depending on what I mean by veto, my “statement may be problematic.” Well, here goes my explanation of what I meant and mean.

Given the context of my discussion yesterday, my point should be clear. But if it is not clear to some, I shall offer these further thoughts. The “legally protected” matters are the rights of citizenship that need to exist regardless of the divisions that exist within the citizenry. The cause of Mr. Eckern is legitimate, although opinion on it is divided. That’s what happens in most ballot initiatives: how do the citizens wish to proceed? In the context of Proposition 8 about which I spoke, it is evident that the division in American society in general and California society in particular is deep when it comes to what is constitutive of marriage. Mr. Eckern was doing what he was entitled to do without the veto of pressure from those who disagree with his political and social views that are the subject of a robust debate. If Mr. Eckern is intimidated in not supporting the side that disagrees with the views of those on the other side of the issue, this is detrimental to our republican democracy. If Mr. Eckern had contributed to the campaign opposing Proposition 8, I am certain he would have been applauded by many of those individuals who were quoted in The New York Times article to which I referred yesterday. If this were the circumstance of Mr. Eckern’s contribution, what makes it different from the contributions of those citizens who supported Proposition 8? In my estimation, both are protected by the most fundamental principles of republican democracy. Like Mr. Eckern, I happen to agree with one side and not the other, but that is democracy, and it is not the place of any citizen to bully those with whom they disagree in a hotly debated election. To challenge and seek reasons and justifications, yes; to coerce and silence, no.

The veto or boycott that I addressed yesterday and previously in the context of the AALS boycott of the hotel owned by a gentleman who also contributed in favor of Proposition 8 is counterintuitive to a democracy. These vetoes and boycotts are not designed to express a political view of the opponent, they are designed to remove political opponents who have every right to exist and participate in the processes by which we address and determine our life in common in a democracy. Susan’s interesting hypothetical is inapposite to the matters I have raised and continue to address. To borrow from Christopher Dawson, if citizens like Mr. Eckern who, in the exercise of their general rights as citizens and in the pursuit of their religious liberty, are intimidated from doing what their political opponents are doing in a ballot initiative, they are being pushed not only out of the political culture but out of physical existence. And this is a problem for all who value reasoned debate and the ability to participate in ballot initiatives that are the bedrock of democracy.

RJA sj