Today is an election day in some parts of the country, though not in my home state of Nevada. The two big election states in my radar are in Maine and Washington state. In those two states there are gay rights referendums on the ballot. And though I've been remiss in reporting on those two issues, I'm writing this in a last ditch effort to sway the one or two people who might happen upon this post.
In Washington, they're trying to take away domestic partnership rights for gay people. And in Maine, they're trying to invalidate marriage rights for gay people that have already been gained. The results in these sorts of elections are abysmal for the gay side. I think we're 0-for all, actually. But the main point here for me is, should rights even be up for a popular vote in the first place? I think not. If they were, most of the rights obtained for minorities and women would never have been obtained in the first place.
Many anti-gay marriage arguments allege that if only we didn't call it "marriage," there wouldn't be a problem. This is belied by the fact that in Washington the issue isn't marriage, but domestic partnership rights. This proves--to me at least--that a dictionary definition really isn't the issue. Stomping on the neck of gay people (mostly in the name of religion, which shouldn't enter into law in the first place) is the issue.
I just want to pose the hypothetical scenario to anyone in those states (or elsewhere) sitting on the fence. Suppose that I was of a religion that found your personal relationship abhorrent. For whatever reason. Imagine that I found enough people to put it on a resolution that your relationship was unworthy--in fact abominable--of any sort of legal recognition. Further suppose that we were capable of voting your rights away. Exactly how would that make you feel? And would you think that other voters had any right to make such a decision in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Have something to say to us? Post it here!