Αΐντε γαμήσου, ρε μαλάκες

I would like to take a moment to express my utter disgust with the 80% of Greek Cypriots who believe that homosexual relationships are morally wrong. The findings were part of a state-commissioned survey conducted by the Cyprus College Research Centre. More than half of the respondents claimed that they are uncomfortable in the presence of GLBT people, while 76% expressed opposition to same-sex marriage.

The survey demonstrates that public opinion often lags behind the Law. Although consensual homosexual activity in Cyprus was decriminalized in 1998, it appears that the vast majority of Greek Cypriots have yet to make the leap to acceptance of the GLBT people living in their midst. As far as this Greek is concerned, the survey shows them to be small-minded bigots who are ignorant of their own history.

However, the real lesson here is that the Law does not necessarily need to reflect popular sentiment. In fact, there are instances in which it must not. If it were up to the people of Cyprus, gay sex would still be a crime. In certain parts of the United States, it would still be a (lynchable) crime for an African American man to marry a white woman. While our laws often reflect the less noble side of human nature, it is a victory for justice and humanity whenever the Law can rise above our petty prejudices. In Cyprus, the Law currently reflects the European Union’s commitment to equality for all, including sexual minorities. That’s the way it should be.

This is indeed the case in Massachusetts, where the Law is more in tune with the principles of justice and equality than is the citizenry as a whole. The state’s highest court has ruled that, in spite of the fact that there are many in Massachusetts who oppose homosexual relationships, for the state to continue denying marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the basic foundational principles underlying our Constitution.

The people cannot always be trusted to defend those principles. On the contrary, as the debate over same-sex marriage in Massachusetts so clearly demonstrates, the people are often far more eager to defend their own beliefs and prejudices, even when they conflict with the broader values on which our government rests. When that happens, it is the right and responsibility of the courts to defend those foundational principles from popular assault.

As Margaret H. Marshall, chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, asked assistant attorney general Peter Sacks during a hearing to determine the legality of a recent initiative petition seeking to undo same-sex marriage, “If this court rules that slavery is inconsistent with the Constitution (can) the people of Massachusetts through an initiative petition say that it is permissible to have slavery in Massachusetts?”

It is up to the courts to ensure that the Law is immune from the insidious influence of bigotry and popular prejudice. This is precisely what happened back in 1998 when the European Court of Human Rights forced Cyprus to decriminalize homosexual activity and in November 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the state must extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

Only a vile distortion of democratic and populist principles would seek to strip the courts of their right—and their duty—to test the Law for its faithfulness to the Constitution and the principles it upholds.