Gay Marriage: What’s Wrong with a Referendum?
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
However, to openly state that minority rights cannot be decided by the majority is at worst fiction and at best historical revision. Let’s just remember that the Constitution was decided by a bunch of men representing the individual states who decided that black Americans were three fifths of a person. The majority (white race) certainly decided the rights of the minority (black race). Maybe some of the gay marriage advocates should go back in time and try their rhetorical salsa circa late 18th century and see how well it is received.
Fast forward to the 1960s and if not for many white men and women, many black men and women would not be able to vote today. Again, the majority deciding for the minority. And one last historical reference, women were given the right to vote by the (almost) majority of men in the early 20th century. Wouldn’t have been quite an interesting read if women suffragists argued that men – who had the right to vote – had no right to decide if they should also have the right to vote?
I lied. One final example is more recent and closer to home here in Rhode Island. In 2006, Rhode Islanders voted to give back the right to vote to people on probation and parole. In this instance, the majority (those not on probation or parole) decided the rights of the minority former felons. I don’t recall anyone on the RightToVote campaign decrying the fact that Rhode Islanders held the voting rights of the former felons in their hands.
No, with gay marriage this line of argument seems new and, if I may use this wording, completely intellectually dishonest. We are a social contract society and we decide how we want to live. There are a number of issues I don’t agree with and the majority of folks do. I don’t complain about how my “rights” are being infringed upon by an oppressive majority. No! I try to convince them that my way is the right way! Gay marriage activists should follow in kind and stop belittling our intelligence with rhetorical jumping jacks.
Rhode Island voters should decide the issue of marriage and in my opinion it should be a constitutional amendment. Less desirable is legislation in the General Assembly. It’s less desirable because it can be more easily changed than a Constitutional amendment. I say that without regard to which side wins more so that the issue can (finally) be laid to rest by such amendment.
Yet, gay marriage proponents simply refuse to accept that changing the definition of marriage is a fundamental change to the fabric of our society. It’s not a simple matter of conferring rights from one group to another. It’s a matter of changing the way we view one of the fundamental concepts of our culture. I don’t want to change it, but I’m all for allowing my fellow Rhode Islanders decide and being content with their decision.
Given that recent polls suggest more Rhode Islanders favor gay marriage than oppose it, what’s the fear for gay marriage activists? Do they not really believe their polling? Are they afraid the battle with marriage advocates will sway the electorate to the other side? Whatever their fear is in not encouraging a referendum on this issue it runs counter to the history of change in this country.
And for an institution like marriage, the people of Rhode Island deserve to have their say in the debate once and for all.
Related Articles
- Obama Budget Cuts Will Win Him Re-Election
- Being Black in the 21st Century
- Is ‘Conservative’ a Bad Word?
- Time for Compromise on Immigration
- Gist’s Days Seem Numbered
Comments:
John Bartlett
11:27am on Wednesday, February 23, 2011
When did we vote to end segregation? When did we vote to give women the vote? When did we vote to allow mixed race marriage? If we vote on marriage for same sex couples, let's vote on everyone's marriage. Should opposite sex couples be allowed to marry? Should people of different religions be allowed to marry? Should people unable to produce children be allowed to marry? Let the people have their say over ALL marriages not just one kind.
David Grossman
11:43am on Wednesday, February 23, 2011
First of all, the Supreme Court has already indicated (17 times) that marriage is a civil right of every American. Civil rights do NOT get voted on by the public. Every citizen is suppose to already have them.
Based on your ideology (majority rules), interracial marriage should still be banned. Fifty-years ago, an overwhelming majority (72%) of the public supported bans on interracial marriage. At one time, there were bans in 31 states. (Sound familiar?) Those darn activist Supreme Court judges overruled the "will of the people" and ended those bans. When has the majority EVER supported civil rights for the minority?
I have no doubt you'll disagree with me. But sexual orientation is just an innate as skin color. Neither can be changed, regardless of what your church or "family values" organizations might tell you. Are you able to change YOUR sexual orientation? Yet others can? If sexual orientation is simply a choice, then why the need for so-called ex-gay therapy? Can't someone just change back to being straight? That's what the word "choice" implies. My point being, discriminating against people because an innate characteristic is clearly discriminatory, and wholly un-American.
You wrote, "Yet, gay marriage proponents simply refuse to accept that changing the definition of marriage is a fundamental change to the fabric of our society. It’s not a simple matter of conferring rights from one group to another." -- I couldn't disagree more. If you are a straight person, same-sex marriage will have virtually ZERO impact on your life. Straight people will STILL marry straight people if gay couples can marry. Or am I missing something? The ONLY change is that gay people will be able to marry gay people. Marriage has never been stronger in Massachusetts. They have the lowest divorce rate in the country, and same-sex marriage has been legal there for 6 years. Here's an apt analogy: When women were given the right to vote, was a man's right to vote fundamentally changed? He could still vote, correct? Although one might say that it changed the fabric of our society, no one can argue that doing so was the wrong thing to do. When has expanding civil rights EVER been the wrong decision in America?
ken fish
11:51am on Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Roach is not a 'mind-setter', he is a mis-informed 'truth-twister', so ignorant of history as to lack any credibility.
Matthew White
12:35pm on Wednesday, February 23, 2011
there is some very strange, rowley-esque reasoning in this article that usually does not appear in Mr. Roach's articles. Homophobia has a way of clouding up the brain.
Very strange that he would say that minority rights CAN be addressed by the majority, and then IMMEDIATELY bring up the 3/5ths clause. Um, the 3/5ths clause do NOT support your argument.
What follows is a historical whitewash. The real question is, referendum or legislation? The voting rights for the historically disenfranchised groups you mentioned were all secured through legislation at the federal level.
This article once again proves, there is no rational case against gay marriage.
Pro Democracy
12:46pm on Wednesday, February 23, 2011
What??? "The majority (white race) certainly decided the rights of the minority (black race)." Let's see, how did that work out for the black race. Clearly Mr. Roach is opposed to marriage equality and he should do the intellectually honest thing and say it rather than burying his bias in this pseudo historical nonsense. What a joke!
Norman Dostal
2:01pm on Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Black bigots-they still blow me away!
This man is lying-the majority NEVER voted to end segregation or allow interracial marriage. Why is he lying? If voted on, interracial marriage would have been illegal until 1993-in the south, it would STILL be illegal in a few states!
Black bigotry against gays makes me very sad-it isnt the exact fight, but what is the same is that religious bigotry is suppressing a minority by twisting the bible.
Time for this horrible injustice to stop. Rights must never be voted on and marriage is a right-determined many times by the SC.
I just pray that the old guard dies off soon and the next generation, which overwhelmingly approves of gay rights, takes their places.
Blacks, I hope, will some day embrace equality. It is this hatred that keeps their race down, which destroys them.
So sad-as their Lord said, 'Forgive them-they know not what they do"
Michael Gardiner
1:24am on Thursday, February 24, 2011
The mindsetter argues for the "Pontious Pilate" school of leadership. As if to say, "Let the crowd decide." If they get it wrong, you can wash your hands and say the crowd spoke. Republican leaders should help the gay community achieve marriage equality just as they helped the slaves and former slaves to be free and to have their freedom even against the wishes of the majorities in the rebellious slave states.
joe bernstein
1:51am on Thursday, February 24, 2011
The General Assembly has to take a vote on this issue-they've weaseled for years now.
I personally don't care about the issue one way or another,but it seems all the GA wants to do is hand out legislative grants and vote on inconsequential crap where they don't have to demonstrate accountability.
A referendum is more appropriate for such issues as the state name change or transportation bonds,etc.
Donn Roach
6:13am on Thursday, February 24, 2011
Thank you all for responding to this. I am going to make a detailed reply over the next day or so.
- don
Gary Lisday
7:29pm on Wednesday, April 06, 2011
We live in a republic, not a democracy. The people have the right to vote every two years in November.
The extension of marriage to same sex couples has no impact on others. If you think it does, please explain why.
That is why this issue should not be voted on.