Legislating inequality: Last year in California, this year in Maine?
By Mary Shaw
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Nov 3, 2009, 00:22
A lot of Americans pay very little attention to the off-year
elections, like the ones that will take place today. After all, we’re not
electing a president, or members of Congress. This year’s election is mostly
about judges, school board members, and a handful of state governors.
However, there are often some ballot measures that merit a
greater turnout than they usually see. This time around, the one I’m watching
most closely is the Maine
referendum on same-sex marriage.
Last year, Californians passed Proposition 8, which amended
that state’s constitution to declare that only marriage between a man and a
woman is valid or recognized in California.
Prop 8 overturned the California Supreme Court’s prior ruling that same-sex
couples have a constitutional right to marry.
This year, the same kind of battle is taking place in Maine. Depending on the
voting results, Maine’s Question 1 could repeal the recently passed law
legalizing same-sex marriage in that state.
If Question 1 passes, Maine
-- like California
-- will have legislated inequality. In a nation founded on the principle that
all men are created equal, the law will now say that gays and lesbians are not
so equal. It will officially define gays and lesbians as second-class citizens
who are not entitled to equal rights in that state.
State constitutions, like the federal one, are designed as
living documents, amendable as society progresses, to address new issues that
the original founders might never have anticipated. But, traditionally,
constitutional amendments have been used to grant new rights, not take rights
away. Now they’re looking to take rights away from people who already have
those rights in Maine.
That’s like suddenly telling women or African Americans that they can no longer
vote, or like outlawing interracial marriage at this point. Who would stand for
that (outside, perhaps, the Deep South)?
A big driving influence for the anti-gay bigotry in the U.S. is
religion, particularly Christianity. The religious extremists like to scream
that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Case closed. So they are out to save the
soul of America
by fighting against the so-called homosexual agenda, i.e., equality, which they
see as an affront to their god.
But these people fail to recognize -- or refuse to recognize
-- the fact that the U.S.
was not founded as a Christian nation. They conveniently ignore the language of
the First Amendment, which explicitly prohibits government from establishing a
religion, and which protects each person’s right to practice -- or not practice
-- any faith without government interference. In other words, you cannot impose
your own religious beliefs on others. So religion is not a valid justification
on which to judge the validity of civil marriage.
But this is exactly what the anti-equality crowd insists on
doing. And they do it using scare tactics, claiming that allowing gay marriage
will destroy the institution as a whole -- apparently more so than divorce, and
more so than their own hypocritical, often-closeted ringmasters. (Hi, Ted
Haggard! Hi, Larry Craig!)
And the sheep -- whipped into an emotional frenzy by these
scare tactics -- actually believe that their own marriages will be threatened
if the gay couple down the street is allowed to marry. And so they will vote
accordingly on Tuesday, even as I question whether these people -- led by
emotion rather than reality -- are really qualified to make constitutional
decisions that will affect all the state’s citizens. After all, it has been
said that true democracy requires an informed electorate, not a frenzied mob of
bigots.
They would do well to ponder one of my favorite quotations
on the subject, by political commentator James Carville: “I was against gay
marriage until I found out I didn’t have to have one.”
And they would do well to ponder the words of their very own
Jesus Christ: “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and
activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a
former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights
group Amnesty International, and her views appear regularly in a variety of
newspapers, magazines, and websites. Note that the ideas expressed here are the
author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty
International or any other organization with which she may be associated.
E-mail: mary@maryshawonline.com.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor