American soldiers engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan remind us that our debates about the state of American culture are far from actual "wars." Unlike other societies where division often leads to violence, we inherited a framework for resolving our differences according to shared principles and practices of constitutional government.
It is true that questions such as embryonic-stem-cell research or the definition of marriage create tension with those fundamental principles. But disregard and misuse of the very tools of self-governance in recent decades have threatened our capacity to address these differences.
All the more reason we should recommit ourselves to the constitutional framework of shared principles and insist that courts and legislatures respect them, assisting rather than hindering us in navigating challenging issues.
The Founders thought moral reasoning was a prerequisite for a self-governing people. In the Constitution, they designed a system that presumes we are capable of deliberating together about what is good.
By appealing to shared concepts of the common good, we ensure our exercise in democratic self-rule is a matter of reasoned discourse rather than raw political muscle, the triumph of strong over weak.
Morality and reasoned discourse are essential to safeguarding individual liberties and basic human rights — and make tolerance possible. Refusal to rely on reasoned discourse creates both ugly spectacle and dangerous precedent.
Consider the backlash last year against supporters of Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment that defined marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. Voters who displayed the "Yes on 8" slogan had their cars keyed, bumper stickers ripped off, yard signs stolen and other property damaged.
Donors who gave as little as $100 received vulgar e-mails and phone calls; their employers or businesses were targeted for picketing and boycotts. Churches were vandalized. Mormon temples got packages of suspicious white powder in the mail. The mayor of Fresno received a death threat.
Our ability to reason together on the most fundamental issues also is shortchanged when courts or remote levels of government snatch decision-making from our hands. Judicial activism particularly heightens tension by suggesting decisions are out of our control.
Proposition 8, for example, responded to a California Supreme Court ruling that redefined marriage despite the fact that a significant majority of state voters in 2000 spoke in favor of traditional marriage by approving Proposition 22, a ballot measure protecting marriage in statute.
