Comments on: Neff: Stop putting gay rights to a vote

By: Larry

Larry — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:04:35 +0000

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

By: George

George — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:44:40 +0000

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?

By: Mark in Scottsdale

Mark in Scottsdale — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:10:19 +0000

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!

By: goodluckwiththat

goodluckwiththat — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:19:40 +0000

*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.

By: Ryan H

Ryan H — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:46:30 +0000

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.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:32:59 +0000

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.

By: john wilfred sharp

john wilfred sharp — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:22:33 +0000

sure there is no reason the majority should decide on the lives of the minority .democracy is a joke when strait people decide if gays should have the right to exist.

By: Don

Don — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:30:52 +0000

I meant to say a ‘ban’ on inter-racial marriage would probably still be with us…

By: Don

Don — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:06:44 +0000

Civil rights should NEVER be put a vote of the people. You’ve heard it before but it’s true. Slavery would have gone on much longer had the issue been put to a vote of the people. Inter-racial marriage would probably still be with us if it had been put to the vote of the people. Such could also be said about women’s rights, from voting to abortion, if these human rights are put to the people.

I don’t know why it is that so many people believe they have a right to decide for all the other people what is ethical and moral for each of us as individuals, but they do. And they tend to be fervent about it, too.

This is why we have a judicial system and a Constitution. Our forefathers saw the need to protect the individual from the will of the people and built in safeguards to do just that; and while they may not have imagined the social issues of our day and age they certainly saw the problems created by their own system which they sought to change. Kings, and certain presidents, do not like habeus corpus! The next time you hear someone cry “activist judge” remember it is those men and women of the court who stand between us and the will of the people. Equality would be in an even worse state without them.

By: Ed Gould

Ed Gould — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:22:08 +0000

I too also have been in and around Chicago Politics for about 13 years now (I am 60). Chicago elections are far from perfect but I believe they have been the most honest in the last 13 years (except for an incident or two).
There are certain issues like gay rights or gay marriage that seem to bring out the nutcakes. The nutcakes are the ones I think we are all afraid of. From following us home or making obscene phone calls or at worst painting hate items on walls we are all afraid of that (at least I am). Discussing items like gay rights or gay marriage or whatever is no longer a safe thing to do because of the nutcakes. Its one thing to discuss those items in a gay friendly audience it is a whole other “item” to discuss them in a community forum of one sort or another. Yes we have hate crime laws but it is traumatic to go through them and of course it doesn’t help that the police are largely unsympathetic or even hostile to gays. Yes we have a gay group in the Chicago Police department but the trouble is there is still a large segment of the gay population that are afraid to report crimes to the police because of the “gay” angle whether it be burglary or a hate crime police are less the sympathetic and to the point of homophobic so a lot of crime goes unreported. This has a strong bearing on willingness to discuss items in open forums so that makes for a vocal few to bring items up unless everyone is comfortable in doing so.

Being an outsider like most gay people is part and parcel of the gay issue and until police and others take hate crime seriously we will always be considered outsiders.