Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Neff: Stop putting gay rights to a vote
My first years as a reporter I covered elections in New Hampshire, and I got a hands-on tutorial in direct democracy.
Sure, voters in New Hampshire go to the polls and cast ballots for candidates of choice in the ordinary manner.But many voters also gather in halls or local gymnasiums in the early spring for town hall meetings — lengthy affairs in which citizens approve a budget and vote up or down, usually with much discussion, questions on a range of issues — from white-washing town hall to opposing war, creating affordable housing, guaranteeing healthcare, expanding access to education and banning nukes.
The debates were inspirational. The level of citizen involvement was amazing. I remember asking why more issues were not decided by direct democracy, by a vote of the people.
I wrote a column then about New England town meeting politics and referenda. I know the forums and initiatives are not new, but they were new to me. I had grown up in the Chicago area in the era of machine politics. My editor put a headline on my column referring to me as a “rube,” not really flattering, but accurate in hindsight.
I became fascinated with the concept of voting on issues, town meeting referendums, ballot initiatives and questions.
Got a cause, hold a vote.
“Rube” was right, a naïve, inexperienced person.
But I became a jaded journalist in a few short years, and I got a personal tutorial in direct democracy damage. I had known machine politics. I came to know the electoral activism of New England politics. Then, with a change of locale and a change of job, I got to know all about the big-money anti-this, anti-that initiative.
Initiatives had once been the tool of progressives seeking to counter the money-influence in legislative chambers — the idea was to defeat the special interest groups by the power of the people.
Initiatives increasingly seem the tool of conservatives seeking to roll-back, deny or withhold rights.
This week, as I think about the questions voters will face not at town hall forums but at the polls Nov. 4, I am reminded of a statement by William Jennings Bryan from 1920:
“We have the initiative and referendum. Do not disturb them. If defects are discovered, correct them and perfect the machinery. Make it possible for the people to have what they want. We are the world’s teacher in democracy. The world looks to us for an example. We cannot ask others to trust the people unless we ourselves are willing to trust them.”
I think of this as I consider the 152 ballot questions facing voters in 36 states on election day. Many of the questions seek to address social issues and 60 of them were placed on the ballot by citizen initiative.
Do you, voters are being asked in California, Arizona and Florida, want to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage?
Do you, voters are being asked in Arkansas, want to ban people cohabitating outside marriage from adopting children?
Do you, voters are being asked in Colorado and South Dakota, want to ban abortion?
Do you, voters are being asked in Colorado and Nebraska, want to eliminate affirmative action?
Do you, voters are being asked in Colorado, want to diminish labor unions by prohibiting the deduction of union dues from public employee paychecks?
Do you, voters are being asked in Arizona, want to prohibit universal healthcare programs? Protect payday loan businesses?
Do you, voters are being asked in Missouri, want to pass a constitutional amendment requiring English be spoken at all government meetings?
A search for progressive issues on ballots finds too few across the country — and the interests seem more with protecting domestic animals than people. There is a real possibility that in California, the vote will be to ban gays and lesbians from marrying and another vote will require a more humane treatment of pregnant pigs, calves and hens by mandating a minimum living space.
Please, don’t get me wrong — I support the animal rights matter, known as Proposition 2. I just wish I could count on more support for humane treatment of people.
Over the years, a number of anti-gay measures have been put to a vote — 29 out of 30 propositions to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman have passed.
“We cannot ask others to trust the people unless we ourselves are willing to trust them,” Jennings said.
I am afraid, today, I don’t trust the people, and I miss the innocence of being a rube, when I felt so passionate about got a cause, hold a vote.
Since when was it my neighbors business or right to tell me how to conduct my personal life shouldnt who i marry be up to me? i think this voting on social issues needs to come to an end and soon lets vote on things that affect EVERYONE IE higher taxes, how our money is spent,who leads our local and federal gov. no one should be allowed a vote on if my partner and i marry after all last time i checked our paychecks had taxes deducted doesnt that make us tax paying citizens? but how do we stop it who knows
Part of the problem is framing it as a “rights” question in the first place.
On more than one occasion, I have heard a judge (correctly) say that s/he finds no mention of a “right” to marry in the Constitution. (Yes, I know that the U.N. says marriage is a universal right, but the American Constitution does not, nor does the Bill of Rights.)
What IS ‘promised’ is that all citizens will be treated equally before the law – which is exactly what California’s Supreme Curt agreed with.
Perhaps a better tack is to remind people that all ctizens do indeed, have the right to both LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.
Speak to us about the FREEDOM (aka liberty) to marry – America is (or at least used to be) the Land of the FREE” (TM).
Why do only heterosexuals get to pursue their hapiness?
I’ve been wondering about this “voting on social issue” having become so ‘normal’ in the US. If the south had voted on integration, we’d still have “seperate but equal” schools in the south. If half of the US would have been asked to vote on interracial marriages – people could still be hanged for marrying outside their color/race. And if the southern states had been asked to vote on Slavery, I guess I’d now own our cleaning lady vs paying her at far above minimum wage! History has shown over and over again that “the people” are not a good source for guidance when it comes to social change or issues of equality! When are we going to figure that out? Maybe all the voters in California should get together and vote for no more state income or sales taxes! That would create bedlam in a matter of days! Or how about voting that anyone with a net worth of over five million dollars is no longer allowed to earn more money. Better they leave some for the rest of us! Or how about California decides to forfiet the property of all illegal immigrants, and declare them to be SLAVES to be sold to the highest bidder! (Bet Arnold would love that one! The revenue alone would more than balance the state budget for decades to come. And the illegal immigrant problem would be solved once and for all! None of the above are any more absurd than asking a bunch of people who are totally unaffected by gay marriage whether or not they want it to be a matter of law! Then there is the issue of out of state entities donating millions to this campaign one way or another. Why is the Mormon Church allowed to donate millions to change the law in a state where they have less than 700,000 members? Califonria has a population of over 37 MILLION – most of whom are not Mormon. What on earth is reasonable about accepting million dollar donations from these out of state, right wing religious groups and allowing them to lobby to change the law in a state where they don’t even reside? This is INSANITY – and yet it goes on unquestioned and no one in Lambda or the ACLU has thought to file for an injunction to stop this practice while the courts determine the legality of it’s taking place! I am a Californian. (My partner and I also have a home in Arizona where we spend part of the winter – hence the handle.) I do not want out of state groups influencing the law of the land in my home state simply because they can write a huge check or two! Their donations may well be illegal, yet no one has questioned them! What’s wrong with this picture? We allow a bunch of voters to determine what is fair, lawful, and right under the law – even though most have no legal training and half don’t even understand the issue – and then we allow various religious groups to influence the vote with their millions poured into a state that is not their home state! THIS IS INSANITY! And yet our leaders sit wringing their hands as they try to brush the rice out of their hair from their own weddings last week or last month. Soon, they marriage licenses may not be worth the paper they are written on if we don’t stand up and stop this unfair and illegal buying of votes from outside the state!
*sigh* Still the comments come in, giving tea and sympathy to the overpaid whining gay “leaders” who are responsible for the mess called No On 8. Where are the calls for accountability here? Certainly not coming from 365gay or any of its legendarily creampuff editorializing.
Amen. Human rights should absolutely not be put up for a vote – that’s the role of the judiciary, IMO. Of course the right will label this as “judicial activism” or “legislating from the bench”, but it is in the purview of judges.
Of course civil rights should not be subject to the consent the majority, or to any vote. That’s why they are called “rights”. But, for the time being in CA, the civil right that we call marriage is subject to a vote.
I notice that the proposition to repeal marriage rights does not also repeal equal protection. Hence, any protection given by government must be given equally to all people, and any protection denied to anyone must be denied to everyone. I would not be surprised to see a CA judge rule, sometime next year, that because the state denies “marriage” to some couples, it must deny that same protection to everyone.
The judge who pronounces that ruling might be lynched. But I think he would be right. During the appeal, a lot of eduction would happen. Then they would have a new amendment to restore marriage for everyone.