From the article (BBC),
. . .South Africa's parliament has voted to legalise same-sex weddings - the first African country to approve such unions. . .
During the debate before the vote, Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula told MPs: "In breaking with our past... we need to fight and resist all forms of discrimination and prejudice, including homophobia.
But, Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, president of the South African Catholic Bishops' Conference, said the bill would be a blow against democracy.
"The impression we got is that there is overwhelming opposition to this bill from people throughout South Africa," he told South Africa's Daily News before the vote. . .
Now I'm not sure what public opinion on same-sex marriage is in South Africa. However, this does bring up an interesting issue in general. Should a country legalize same-sex marriage because it is "the right thing to do", despite public opinion? Or, should it only do so when the public is generally supportive of same-sex marriage?
In the former case, what then stops a country some enacting a homophobic law, despite public opinion? For example, the present conservative minority government in Canada is interested in re-opening the same-sex marriage debate despite public opinion. (In my understanding, most people are for same-sex marriage in Canada, and most of those that are against it aren't interested in re-opening the debate).
In the latter case (a country legalizing same-sex marriage after it becomes popular), how is the fight for LGBTQ rights affected (given the potential power for such legislation to eventually affect public opinion)? (When same-sex couples are given the same rights as opposite-sex couples, this helps same-sex couples to be seen as equally valid.)
So there is a bit of a circle here. And I don't think this issue is insignificant -- it can affect how LGBTQ organizations allocate their resources (addressing government vs. addressing the general public). Of course this question is one for political philosophy in general -- how to we balance "for the good of the people" with "from the will of the people"?
Maybe such questions become rendered insignificant by the general public's lack of respect for logical consistency. It might make perfect sense to someone to legalize same-sex marriage because it's "the right thing to do" (despite public opinion), then ban pit bulls because it's "the will of the people" (despite what makes the most sense). (And if these examples don't work for you, think of some others :) ).
