Maine 1, Human Rights 0
First of all, Maine, like the rest of our nation, is a representative democracy, not a true democracy. As such, we rely on our representatives in the government to protect our rights. Where do Maine, Washington, California and others who have put this kind of proposition to a vote get off putting the human rights of others on the line? How can it be rationalized with anything, but flagrant disregard for any part of humanity that doesn’t look and act like us?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, “Nobody’s rights are secure until everybody’s rights are secure.” From the NYULocal, yesterday:
I was really sad about Maine; in a way, sadder than California, because Cali was such a national moment, where God’s children screamed at San Francisco loud enough to bring fear back to the state. Coming on the heels of Barack Obama’s election, nobody really had time to feel sad about California. Sure, some of us were disgusted and appalled by the results, so disappointed to see California vote to deny its gay citizens the right to marry. But it was the dawn of a new day! Obama would walk into the White House, so many of us believed, and with a wave of that magic wand he used to rocket himself to victory in the election, he’d make this country understand that gays and lesbians were alright.
But maybe it’s because of Obama, and this tumbling economy, and the ever-increasing encroachment of national chains and virtual networks on the dying face-to-face communication at the small corner store, that so many people remain fearful of gay marriage. It can’t really be about letting gays get married; that affects nobody but the grooms and wives waiting to do so. Rather, I think opponents of gay marriage — and even, perhaps naively, gay rights — are just scared to lose something else. Gay marriage’s passage would prove their values’ irrelevance, another nail in the coffin of the religious caution that kept this nation safe for so long.
This writer is much more generous than I when it comes to the rationalization of this vote. I have no patience for anyone who believes that denying another his basic human rights is a way of protecting your own rights.
I think Stlo7 successfully countered that argument and the preservation of religious beliefs and mores with his discussion of a D&C article back in May.
David Mixner has a post election day piece up which is much more in tune to the way I see it. He refers to this taking away of human rights as Gay Apartheid. I agree.
…call this campaign against us what it is - Gay Apartheid.Refuse to allow any of our fellow Americans, President Obama or our allies to view this as a political issue who[sic] time hasn’t quite come. America is in the process of creating a system of Gay Apartheid. We will not quietly sit and accept it. All over the place, this nation is creating one set of laws for LGBT Americans and another set for all other Americans. That is the classic definition of Apartheid. Either our political allies are for Gay Apartheid or against it. If they are against it, they must fight with us and no longer duck like President Obama did in Maine and Washington. There is no half way in fighting Apartheid.
Again, unfortunately, our president has taken a page from the previous Democratic president and thrown a significant poplulation under the bus in his quest for centrism and compromise. He could have at least appealed to the young people who came out in droves to get him elected last year to return to the polls this year. He didn’t. did he somehow loose his community organizing skills when he took the oath of office?
From John Shelby Spong’s Manifesto, October 15th 2009:
I will no longer seek to slow down the witness to inclusiveness by pretending that there is some middle ground between prejudice and oppression. There isn’t. Justice postponed is justice denied.
Period.
Related posts:
Excellent.
This is exactly why Madison and the founders made sure that the constitution was a balance between majority rule and minority rights. These “referendums” are exactly the threat Jefferson felt they would be, the tyranny of the majority.
As Madison so aptly warned, populism first leads to anarchy, soon followed by tryanny.
Today we see that “tyranny of the mob” played out in these votes.
Wow Ms. Dogood, you actually found it convenient for once to cite Jefferson and Madison. Too bad you don’t consistently support their work establishing freedom.
@ladkiddo, I understand your emotional concern, however basic human rights are not being trampled on. Any two people can voluntarily be together, in any state. The problem arises due to the federal and state government granting certain privileges to a fixed group of people. The only logical solution that I see is to get the government out of the marriage business completely. Most of the privileges currently given to married couples can be contractually put in place between any two people. Taxation, however, is one instance where this is not true.
In this case, you resent the “tyranny of the majority”, but with many other issues you are the majority. A respect for everyone’s natural rights would solve all of these problems.
Sure, get the government out of marriage. Then, when the Christian Right becomes the majority again, they’ll approve to have homosexuals sent to concentration, I mean detainment, I mean CORRECTION centers.
Oh, and one more thing- You can lose the patronizing crap
“@ladkiddo, I understand your emotional concern”
The implication, of course, being that my post is based on emotions and not facts. The fact of this article is right here:
“Nobody’s rights are secure until everybody’s rights are secure.”
And I know that you don’t like government in any way, shape or form, but this is exactly why this government was formed:
“that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed”
“……deriving their just power from the consent of the governed””
Isn’t voting a basic method for the governed to give their consent?
Voting is exactly how we give our representatives the power to govern. We vote for our representatives and then they represent us. What part of representative democracy don’t you understand?
Referendums are not not giving anybody power, except the majority-the power to step on the rights of the minority.
So, voting is good, but only as long as the outcome agrees with your point of view - otherwise our lives should be governed through judges’ rulings, but again, only if their decisions agree with your point of view. Got it.
I wasn’t being patronizing. My point is that there are two types of rights. “Basic human rights”, as you call them, are the rights innate to mankind by virtue of being. Then, there are government granted rights, that is the category that the “right” to gay marriage would fall in. My position is that a voluntary relationship between two people that doesn’t affect others does not require the approval of government, therefore, government should not be in the marriage business. “Just power” does not include the majority being able to violate “basic human rights”, otherwise, you would have to operate from the premise that individuals have no rights unless the government provides them.
If the government got out of the marriage business, then the Christian Right would step in and essentially turn homosexuals into the new Jews. Black people had no rights until the government provided them. Why can’t gay people marry? How long will we continue to believe that separate is equal?
Bwaa ha ha, that’s so cute…why just a couple of weeks ago she took you to school citing them over and over as she and Jemmie did the MikeWNT smackdown…or was your head reeling so that you’ve already forgotten???
Publius,
Typical response from the ill-informed. Never mind that I cited specific sections of the consttitution, and used the entire text of the “Federalist Paper” he himself tried to manipulate, and tore apart his weak attempt to take a passage out-of-context, but he is so blinded by “my philosophy, right or wrong”, that facts have become meaningless.
For instance his comments reveal that he is totally unaware of the difference between liberty and freedom, much less what natural rights means.
Ladkiddo,
You’re right, a kitchen table has about the same understanding of the issue as a simplistic extermist. You’re dealing with the same mentality as the health care issue, “If I’m not aware of the problems, they must not exist.”
“I don’t see any rights being trampled, therefore it must not be happening.” See how simple life is? “I see the sun come up, I see the sun go down; the earth is flat.” No life experience.
It helps justify their hate of what America stands for.
Well that wraps it up…he’s interested in being consistent…and you’re interested in being right.
It is a basic human right to be able to visit your significant other in the hospital. It is also a basic human right to be able to visit your child in the hospital or have a say in that child’s health-care decisions, etc.
You can’t have separate laws for different groups of people.
Exactly. Deny rights for one group of people, you might as well be denying them for everyone.
Some statements that Mike made are just untrue:
“(1)Any two people can voluntarily be together, in any state.”, “(2) The problem arises due to the federal and state government granting certain privileges to a fixed group of people.” and “(3) Most of the privileges currently given to married couples can be contractually put in place between any two people.”
1. Any two people CAN NOT be together voluntarily in an state. There are appropriate constraints on age, for example. Add to that, it is not a question of being together, it is a question of being treated equally when two consenting adults ARE together.
2. Your statement in and of itself is not untrue, it’s the way you apply it that is untrue. Currently, the fixed group of people who are being granted certain priveleges are opposite-sex couples. If it is a problem that one group gets rights and another doesn’t, then don’t exclude more people from the group of the lucky. Yes, getting the government out of the marriage business would be the great equalizer, but there is no way it will happen.
3. Not true again. There are thousands of rights granted through marraige, MOST of which can’t be granted through contracts. (taxes as you mentioned, medical benefits, social security, rights of survivorship and inheritance, visitation, next of kin status…) Marrriage is the one and only contract that would grant them all.
@ whtwtrdood, no, voting is to empower our representatives to represent us. We elect our representatives through voting. Representative democracy. “deriving their just power from the consent of the governed” Electing representatives through voting is our consent.
Your assignment, in lieu of sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on for the rest of the afternoon, is writing “representative democracy” 100 times on the blackboard. When you are finished, you can return to your seat.
As humorous as I find the condescension, I have a full understanding of how our Representative Republic works. Graduating oh so many years ago Magna Cum Laude with a BA in American History and a Secondary Education Certificate sort of required it. I simply find it interesting reading the posts here on occasion pertaining to voting. When the outcome goes your way, it’s wonderful and expected. On the other hand, when they don’t, that’s bad - very bad. Take for instance the recent electoral outcomes in VA and NJ. Folks here seem to think it’s absolutely nothing to worry about and the true sense of how things are going in the country can be found in NY 23. I believe you’re wrong, as does Rahm Emanuel. Then again, what does he know?
So, if you truly have a degree in American history, you are aware that referendum voting is not within the “understanding” of a representative republic.
I checked. Yep, it’s still hanging on the wall in my office.
Thanks I’m glad to see you agree.
I’d love to stay and be the object of your ridicule some more but it’s Friday and since we’re not part of the 17.5% here I have a payroll to meet. May the circular admiration society continue without me.
Essentially what we currently have is “separate but equal”. Can anyone point out a time when “separate but equal” actually worked? And may I point out that it was enforced at the STATE level, not the FEDERAL level.