Maggie's vote fetish: Constitutional fairness not willing partner
"Not even the gay rights folks believe that new poll [showing 53% support for marriage equality]. If the majority of Americans now support gay marriage, why is the gay rights lobby vigorously opposing a proposal to refer the question to an open vote of the people of Rhode Island?" [NOM Blog]
Why, Maggie? Well, for the same reason we don't want to vote on interracial marriage. Why we don't care to put women's right to vote to a public whim. The reason we're aren't considering bring non-discrimination for any minority group to any sort of referendum. Or even, Maggie: Why we don't care to vote on your own interfaith marriage or your right to continue using your maiden surname rather than your "traditional marriage" moniker. It's because we don't want to vote on any constitutional matters that are unfit to be determined by bare majority plebiscite! We're not asking whether or not we the people are allowed to be fair and free citizens of the nation to which we pay taxes!
Maggie then goes on to suggest our non-desire is because we think we might lose. And yes, we admit it: We are always open to that possibility. Because we don't have church networks to exploit against *CIVIL* equality. We don't have fear-mongered talking points to feed into vulnerable parents ears. We don't have minority populations that we care to turn against another. All of these tools, while sure to be frowned upon by history's all-telling mouth, have a way of working just enough in the political climate of 2011. A climate where the ragtag, far more apathetic pro-fairness crew is far, far harder to rally than those who are told their vote is commanded by God.
But mostly, it's the whole "wrong in every way" thing that makes us stand against putting civil rights before a majority vote. Call us radical America lovers if you must.
comments powered by Disqus