Gay Marriage, 'Brown v. BOE' and the Worst Letter to the Editor Ever
My local newspaper, which has a penchant for publishing the stupidest letters to the editor imaginable, actually wasted ink this morning on a missive called "Same-sex unions are not a ballot issue."
In case you have been living under a rock for the last three months, or in case you routinely attempt to ignore all non-Super Bowl news coming out of Massachusetts, the question being asked here is whether the state should even vote on amending its constitution to define marriage as a man and a woman only (i.e. no gay marriages, or at least none actually called "marriage").
No matter what your beliefs on this issue, you must agree that this is one of the most poorly reasoned arguments in favor of gay marriage:
That's just the first paragraph. We'll stop it there and I'll take these statements in turn.
1. We (I am a Massachusetts voter) are not being asked to decide if gays can marry. We are being asked to decide if men can marry men and women can marry women. Gays have always been free to marry any member of the opposite sex, subject to the same terms as straights.
2. Women were granted the right to vote by a series of legislative (not judicial) actions. First, at the state level, women were granted this right by their state constitutions and/or Legislatures (Wyoming's being the first; hence its nickname, "the equality state"). Then, at the Federal level, in the 19th Amendment. These were actions of legislatures, ballots and constitutional conventions; no judges were involved.
2a. And for the record, the only voters involved in the decision to grant the franchise to women were men. By the same token, rights for blacks were secured by the votes of whites. That doesn't make it right, but it is history.
3. Actually, "democracy" is "the rule of the majority." That's why the ancient Greeks described it as a flawed system. And that's why we have a constitutional republic, to protect us from the excesses of democracy. While the protection of minorities from the "tyranny of the majority" may be fundamentally American, it is not perfectly democratic.
That's the second paragraph. I take exception to the notion that the only voters in a statewide referendum will be "gays and the people who want to oppress them." I do not consider myself to fit into either of that category, although I presume that in this writer's crazy world I count as an oppressor because I believe "gay marriage" should be called "civil union."
Still, it's sad that this person thinks that in Massachusetts, there are no straight people who will vote for "gay rights." Has the writer ever been to Provincetown? Northampton? Boston? Any college campus? Many of my (straight) friends here are taken aback by my stance on this issue because we know so many good, upstanding gay people whom we would never dream of "oppressing."
There may be more votes opposed to gay marriage than for it, but I wouldn't take a bet on that. Especially because even I am wary of "writing discrimination into the constitution," as the lobbyists continually remind us this is.
Contradiction: you won't campaign for the issue, yet here you are writing a letter to a large-circulation newspaper about it.
What we see here, really, is that this writer (whom I will not name) is willing to condemn the state Legislature while at the same time saying it's not worth voting on this issue.
This is the closest to a decent argument that we get. I can only say that it is the business of every voter when judiciaries are changing the meanings of words around.
The obvious response is, of course, that in Brown v. BOE the judiciary said "separate is not equal," and such. That, in fact, would not have been a bad argument for this writer to make.
A distinction that should be made: in Brown v. BOE, the court had behind it three constitutional amendments (13, 14, 15) that were passed for the explicit purpose of ensuring that racial minorities are afforded the same rights as whites.
The Mass. SJC (Supreme Judicial Court), on the other hand, ventured into new territory without any such sanction by any Legislative or popularly elected body in the state. That is "activism."
In case you have been living under a rock for the last three months, or in case you routinely attempt to ignore all non-Super Bowl news coming out of Massachusetts, the question being asked here is whether the state should even vote on amending its constitution to define marriage as a man and a woman only (i.e. no gay marriages, or at least none actually called "marriage").
No matter what your beliefs on this issue, you must agree that this is one of the most poorly reasoned arguments in favor of gay marriage:
This idea of letting the voters decide whether or not to allow gays to marry is ridiculous. Imagine if we had decided to have the issue of whether women should be allowed to vote decided by a ballot referendum. All the men are voting. Why should they want women to vote? Democracy is not just the rule of the majority, but the protection of the minority.
That's just the first paragraph. We'll stop it there and I'll take these statements in turn.
1. We (I am a Massachusetts voter) are not being asked to decide if gays can marry. We are being asked to decide if men can marry men and women can marry women. Gays have always been free to marry any member of the opposite sex, subject to the same terms as straights.
2. Women were granted the right to vote by a series of legislative (not judicial) actions. First, at the state level, women were granted this right by their state constitutions and/or Legislatures (Wyoming's being the first; hence its nickname, "the equality state"). Then, at the Federal level, in the 19th Amendment. These were actions of legislatures, ballots and constitutional conventions; no judges were involved.
2a. And for the record, the only voters involved in the decision to grant the franchise to women were men. By the same token, rights for blacks were secured by the votes of whites. That doesn't make it right, but it is history.
3. Actually, "democracy" is "the rule of the majority." That's why the ancient Greeks described it as a flawed system. And that's why we have a constitutional republic, to protect us from the excesses of democracy. While the protection of minorities from the "tyranny of the majority" may be fundamentally American, it is not perfectly democratic.
The people suggesting voters be allowed to decide on this issue know that a vote will work in their favor, that is, that gay marriage will be illegal. The only people who care enough about this issue to go vote are gays and the people who want to oppress them, and there are more of the latter.
That's the second paragraph. I take exception to the notion that the only voters in a statewide referendum will be "gays and the people who want to oppress them." I do not consider myself to fit into either of that category, although I presume that in this writer's crazy world I count as an oppressor because I believe "gay marriage" should be called "civil union."
Still, it's sad that this person thinks that in Massachusetts, there are no straight people who will vote for "gay rights." Has the writer ever been to Provincetown? Northampton? Boston? Any college campus? Many of my (straight) friends here are taken aback by my stance on this issue because we know so many good, upstanding gay people whom we would never dream of "oppressing."
There may be more votes opposed to gay marriage than for it, but I wouldn't take a bet on that. Especially because even I am wary of "writing discrimination into the constitution," as the lobbyists continually remind us this is.
I personally don't see anything wrong with gay marriage, and I don't think it's any of my business, but I don't feel so passionately about the issue that I would go out to vote on it or campaign for the issue.
Contradiction: you won't campaign for the issue, yet here you are writing a letter to a large-circulation newspaper about it.
What we see here, really, is that this writer (whom I will not name) is willing to condemn the state Legislature while at the same time saying it's not worth voting on this issue.
In fact, I don't understand why straight people are so upset about gays getting married, it has nothing to do with them. The place for government is not to limit or dictate personal rights, and neither is this the place for ballot measures.
This is the closest to a decent argument that we get. I can only say that it is the business of every voter when judiciaries are changing the meanings of words around.
The obvious response is, of course, that in Brown v. BOE the judiciary said "separate is not equal," and such. That, in fact, would not have been a bad argument for this writer to make.
A distinction that should be made: in Brown v. BOE, the court had behind it three constitutional amendments (13, 14, 15) that were passed for the explicit purpose of ensuring that racial minorities are afforded the same rights as whites.
The Mass. SJC (Supreme Judicial Court), on the other hand, ventured into new territory without any such sanction by any Legislative or popularly elected body in the state. That is "activism."
Day by Day
Quotidian quips of four sharp wits with bad posture ... © by Chris Muir.
