Why Maine Matters

[stevekenson]

I’m a churning mix of emotions this morning reading about the passage of Ballot Question 1 in Maine, rejecting a state law legalizing same-sex marriage. I feel angry, sad, and nauseous. I’m also struck by the number of people (on Facebook and elsewhere in my online social networks) who are completely unaware of the whole thing. Why should they be, after all? It’s not their state and, quite often, not their issue.

Here’s why what just happened in Maine matters: it not only reinforces the idea of shoving gay people back into the closet and encourages the forces of discrimination in this country, it supports the idea that the majority should get to decide on the rights of the minority. Think about that for a moment. Consider what it is like to have your personal rights, your future, decided by a public referrendum of people with basically no stake in giving you anything, and likely some reasons to leave things as they are. It’s called “the tyranny of the majority” and it is a key reason why the judiciary in our country is supposed to have the power to say “no” to majority decisions that violate the spirit or letter of the rule of law.

Opponents of minority rights get all up in arms about “activist judges” who are “legislating from the bench.” They whip people up into a mob mentality over how their right to vote, their ability to decide is being “taken away from them.” Well, here’s news for you: sometimes the majority is just plain wrong. Sometimes, society needs an independent judiciary, with the kind of tenure it takes to stand up to the majority and say, “This is what is right and fair and in the spirit of our laws.” More often than not, these decisions are progressive: after all, if they didn’t go against majority opinion, then they wouldn’t be necessary in the first place, would they?

How long would it have taken the majority of voters to outlaw slavery, or segregation, or establish civil rights, or a woman’s right to control her own body, or any of the numerous landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court? Would they have done them yet?

If there are any “activists” in all of this trying to take anything away form anyone, it is the anti-civil rights and so-called “pro-marriage” types, who not only want to ensure gay people don’t get the same rights they currently enjoy (not “special rights,” the same rights as everyone) but also want to undermine one of the fundamental elements of our system of law and government when it fails to serve their agenda. They resort to mob rule tactics because it’s all they have left: whipping people up with fear-mongering and sending them rushing to the polls to stop “those people” from carrying out the vague threats promised in attack ads and editorials. It’s the modern, electoral version of angry peasants with torches and pitchforks, a latter-day witch-hunt.

What happened yesterday in Maine, and previously in California, may have been legal, and may have been democracy in action, but don’t for a minute think that it was fairness or justice. The state can legislate that I am less of a person than others all it wants. The fearful majority can try to take away my rights. But I know the truth, and they can never take away my dignity, self-worth, or my willingness to fight for those rights that are due all people; not just for myself, but for the generations who will look back and wonder at the culture that could have been so narrow-minded and afraid.

This is far from over.

Comments

[jediwiker.livejournal.com]

I completely agree, Steve. It sickens me that people with no vested interest in ensuring equal rights are able to pull this kind of crap--but it's far worse that it's not "politically wise" for those with the power to overrule them to actually do so.

[anaka.livejournal.com]

I'm so sorry, Steve. I did what I could in Washington, but I know it's not enough.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Complete agreement. It's the job of the higher courts to overrule the decisions of majorities, and to say, in effect, "If you want to do that then you have to get a big supermajority to agree to it." That's why I found it so utterly appalling that the California constitution could be amended by a bare majority on a popular vote. If that could be done to the federal constitution, the Bill of Rights would be gone by now. Having an independent judiciary is vitally important to maintaining a semi-free society.

[capricorn01984.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree with you more Steve. Thank you for this eloquent post. I've wanted to vent about this Maine issue as it's made me sick too. Reading your expression of your feelings on the matter was like a vicarious vent session for me.


Indeed. Maine matters.

[jcstarbrand.livejournal.com]

It's particularly upsetting that supposedly the No On 1 peple spent twice as much as the Yes On 1 people.

In California we all thought it was only because few believed the majority would fall for the lies so there wasn't a full fight on our side, but this time we knew better, were energized, spent more money, and we still lost. And it doesn't quite seem like Maine's mindset.

Well, my dad voted no. And he's a Republican.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I remember when the California proposition passed. It was deeply disturbing, and quite spoiled my pleasure at not having four more years of Republicans to contend with. (Not that four years of Democrats looks that much better!) I felt the curious emotion of shame, not at my own action, but at an action of my state government, and even more to the point, of the people of my state. I still feel some of it, though the initial intensity has fallen off a bit.

[righteousfist.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[joannahurley.livejournal.com]

I wish I could have lent my vote to this. I'm sorry. NJ has civil unions, but they're not the same thing. The name IS important. I can't comprehend what sort of petty spirit it takes to think that your right to a set of benefits at all interferes with mine. We're all stronger for the commitment of partners to one another, regardless of the gender involved. No, it's not right, it's not fair, and it's not justice.

[jeffinthebox.livejournal.com]

I share your frustration and resolve.

[owen-stephens.livejournal.com]

This isn't over because it's not right yet. I suspect, sitting in Oklahoma, I'm in the center of the incorrectness. But I see clearly that injustice has ruled on this issue, and I am not satisfied.

Any two sane, informed adults not bound by other vows should be free to marry. Full stop. Anything else is unacceptable.

I am sorry a good idea (democracy) has been used in the furtherance of evil.

[zakharov.livejournal.com]

I live in Maine, and I can tell you, a lot of the stuff they blasted on the radio and television was ridiculous. The major effort they made was into our school systems, saying that, if the bill was to remain in effect, they would have to change the school curriculum and teach "Adam and Steve".

I voted no, for the record.