| « Filibuster Ethic | Ban Gay Marriage: Save Our Dictionary » |
Gay Rights and Maine Majoritarianism
11/09/09
Gay Rights and Maine Majoritarianism
Ned at Wisdom Is Vindicated is a happy man. The Maine initiative to take away marriage equality for gay people succeeded, although narrowly. That success reverses the decision of the state legislature to allow marriage for gays. "I'd say it's one thing to present an issue/platform squarely to voters and let them vote," says Ned. "And another to simply get people elected who covertly share your agenda." Ned misses on two counts.
The first is that the entire idea of republican government is the election of representatives who would examine issues in detail, then make decisions.
The second is the nature of self-limited government. Before the United States Constitution was adopted a prolonged debate occurred. Issues of the tyranny of the majority were batted about endlessly. History books still incorrectly ascribe limited government type arguments to the debate about the electoral college. The only issue there was protection of slavery.
But fear of what majorities might do led to the Bill of Rights. For many that was the decisive qualification that enabled them to support the new form of government. The overarching issue, the one that unified all other reservations about the central government, was that some issues ought never to be put to a vote. Some matters should be guaranteed.
For example, I cannot demand of my neighbors that they contribute to my church. If I line up a majority in my neighborhood, or my state, or even the country, I cannot force others to support my religious beliefs. The government, even with the support of a majority, cannot ban an ethnic or religious minority. Your right to swing your arm ends with my nose, even if a majority supports you.
There are arguments about what sort of protections the constitution should provide for minorities. The founders would not have approved of gay rights. They also would not have approved of an end to slavery. Laws change over time. There are historical aberrations.
Slavery, internment camps for Americans whose ancestors were Japanese, segregation, laws outlawing interracial marriage, the suspension of the right of habeas corpus, all were supported by a majority of citizens. All are recognized as deeply and profoundly wrong.
As a practical matter, we accept the lack of perfection in the Republic. We must be satisfied with direction, applying to law and society what Martin Luther King taught us of the arc of the moral universe. That is why gays might have cause for hope. There is no justice, but there is progress.
Someday, students of history will look at today's discrimination as we now look at onetime bans on interracial marriage. They will wonder just what Ned and his majority could possibly have been thinking about.
3 comments
But about how history will view my opposition to homosexual marriage . . . given your profession of Christian faith, it is notable that you seem to believe that God's view of homosexual acts will change.
I was hoping that Maine would be the spark that lights a bonfire, but I guess not. Having lived in NY before, I know that it will not make the ballot there (rarely any ballot initiatives there). NJ I'm not sure, but I hope that if it does make the ballot, at the very least our younger voters show up at the polls.
... Which is precisely what the moneyed elite have been doing since day one. (Slavery being only the starkest example.)
On the other hand, I've long since abandoned the conflation of democracy with majority rule. "Democracy" means literally "rule by the people," an important distinction. In the Quaker community, we make decisions not by majority, but by consensus; it can be frustrating, but it's important to insure that everyone's needs are met.
The problem of the bigoted majority can also be addressed by a better-educated and more-involved majority. As it is, many issues decided by vote in this country come down to who has the better propaganda, which is hardly democratic. Also, many potential voters are either unengaged or disenfranchised because the real decisions of government are almost all made by elected representatives with little or no actual accountability to the populace.
Ned, I suspect that in fact, Burr believes, as a Christian, that God could care less who you love or how you express that love so long as you are not harming yourself or one of Her other children. Any God who would be that petty and vindictive (and hypocritical, as She was, after all, the one who created some people homo- or bisexual in the first place) isn't worth believing in.
In the past (and present) so-called Christians have thumped their Bibles and proclaimed "God is on our side" in defending the murder and/or oppression of Jews, Muslims, pagans, people of color ... all the usual suspects who get trotted out as scapegoats for the problems of society as a whole.
Just such a "Christian" might look upon the prospect of our (mildly) more progressive society and say "you're assuming that God's position on women voting/entering the workforce/interracial marriage/slavery will change." No, God - if such even exists - hasn't changed Her position on any of these matters. It is only society which has changed its position, becoming more enlightened. So it will be, if God smiles upon us, on the issue of homosexuality.
If there is a God, you have to think she'd support the separation of Church and Hate.
On the other hand (is that the third by now), coming at this controversy from the other side of the spectrum, there's this essay a friend of mine posted recently on her Facebook: http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com. It's basically young queer activists saying "wait, since when did queer rights hinge on legalizing gay marriage? We've got other (bigger, more systemic) problems to deal with here."
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
