**** This is in USA, not Taiwan ****
As I just published an article about Ma's alleged gay video, the gay community in California, (CA) USA, was attending a court hearing to fight for their right.
A can't-be-more-brief background:
- CA granted gay/lesbian marriage last year;
- Many gay/lesbian couples took the chance to get married;
- Several other states followed;
- Months later, some committee voted to revoke the state decision. Now the gay marriage is back to illegal;
- The gay community appealed, so the state court issued a hearing to listen arguments from both sides.
What interested me is a question raised by a CNN commentator:
Can the majority vote to suppress minority's right ?
The special feature of the gay right is that, those majority voting against it doesn't suffer a bit in their rights even gay marriage becomes legal. It is simply none of the majority's business. If we want to be more specific, the question can be rephrased as:
Can the majority vote to suppress minority's right that is nothing to do with the majority?
In this case, it did happen, the right of minority (gay) is suppressed by a voting against them.
The gay community argued that it violates the constitution. The anti-gay side argued that the constitution is written by people so people do have the right to re-write it.
I think this is very fundamental issue of democracy, as the same question can certainly pop up in any right other than gay's.
The court will give a ruling in 90 days. Lets see how the court handles this.