"Civil rights should not be put up for a vote"

[51stcenturyfox]

I don't normally talk about politics on my LJ, but this was a short tweet today on Twitter trending topics for #maine, and it says it all, really.

In case you haven't heard, Maine voted against marriage equality for gay and lesbian citizens yesterday by a 53% majority. This does not surprise me. The country as a whole is ideologically split.

The thing is, this shouldn't be something we vote on at the local level anyway.  Equality is a civil rights issue.  Whether you call it marriage or something else, some people have greater protections (and federal benefits) under the law than others, and it isn't right.  We live under the same Constitution. If local voters in some places had their way, there would still be legal discrimination for housing, in schools, etc. Check out the Commerce Clause and its role in passing civil rights legislation at the federal level. 

Many of the reader comments on the Bangor Daily News article about the result are just shockingly ignorant. Celebrating a backwards decision to deny equal rights to your fellow citizens? Uncool.

But some comments are great:

"...you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them DO NOT apply to minorities?"

YES. THIS.

Comments

[shannon730.livejournal.com]

I completely agree...also the words "The Bible Says" should not factor into the decision at all...you know, that whole separation of church and state thing...

[jo19844-twfic.livejournal.com]

the bible also encourages an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.

There snt a single passage in the bible that says "okay and being gay is wrong an you wil be amned to hell for all eternity" (even if it did, i hear that hell has some great bands and a barbeque every night of the week!)

I'm sure if Jesus were walking the earth now he would completely dissagree and say that he had been missquoted and/or had it taken out of context.

God loves all, aparently nowhere in th bibe oes it say "god loves all oh unless your gay dissabled, black or have a love of thrash metal music" nor oes it say "god only loves you if you beleve everyting you read"

its crap. god loves everyone and at the end of the day for all those god lovers out there if go dint want gay people he woult have given us the ability to chose it woul he?

It's a fear of difference really and pinning it on God is rediculous...

Im sure the bible also says thou shalt not steal but we have politicians, dont we??

[shannon730.livejournal.com]

Hell is clearly a less bigoted place...

The same people that will use "the bible says" as an argument for anything at all are the same people that complain about religion being the reason things are the way they are in the middle east...so apparently if it's not a christian religion it's wrong to make laws based on religion but if it's christian...And even then it's only when it suits their purpose.

If gay marriage can only be a civil ceremony and not performed in churches I can understand that. If I were gay I'm not sure I'd want to part of any organization so determined to believe that it's wrong to love who I love...but the government shouldn't be making laws about based on what any religion thinks God believes.

[jo19844-twfic.livejournal.com]

the official line from te catolic church on homosexuality is that it is ot wrong to love a member of e same sex... go loves all and is all excepting... however it is the sexual act o homosexuality that is wrong...

the reason for this? any sex out of wedlock is a sin... so make it acceptable to we in te church an it all fine!!

i mut stand up fro the catolic church here though... im part o it an do believe in it and in our discusion group on homosexuality my priest and a number of the nuns were very clear on their views... they dont understand it but they respect it and people shoul not be outcast for being different. God would certainly not be against something that makes someone happy.

i do love my church.

[amand-r.livejournal.com]

Actually, the reason is that male male sex doesn't result in children. The Leviticus rule about homosexuality is pretty male specific, and it was rooted in the fact that reproduction, having children, was the driving reason for having sex. This explains passages in which men ejaculating on the ground instead of in a woman is equally bad in the eyes of god. (the story of Tamar and her brother in law)

In a word that doesn't really need more population, this doesn't apply anymore, if it ever did, actually. It does, however, jive with the Catholic Church's current stance on birth control, which is equally archaic. But it's bvery hard to change these sorts of things, and I think God probably gets it better than we all do.

[jo19844-twfic.livejournal.com]

see in my mind i dont understand how its possible not to give equal rights to all and it still be lagal.

its not a tough gay people chose to be gay; hy the hell woul someone chose somethig that would automatically make themselves a miniority?

Why the hell should gay people (who lets face it already get a harder time for a chunk of their lives anyway) have less riht tan someone who is straight. It' hard enough to convince people that being gay is okay without putting them in a place where theyre actually outcast from 'normal' society.

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

I'm married to a man, and I just think it's terribly unfair that when I die, he'll receive things like social security benefits as my spouse, yet a same-sex couple who have lived together for 50 years don't have the same benefit.

Why? This makes no sense.

Maybe these things shouldn't be tied to marriage at all, but as long as there are federal benefits to marriage, it is a civil rights issue.

[jo19844-twfic.livejournal.com]

politics never makes any sence. sa but true.

I honestly dont see the difference. it just strikes me dumb tbh... dont understand at all.

[bluejeans07.livejournal.com]

*high fives*

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

Way up high!

[bodlon.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Seriously, thank you.

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

Dude. I don't know what sort of arguments our side in Maine was using, but I suspect historic Civil Rights law wasn't one of 'em, and maybe it should have been.

Fuck me running.

[jo19844-twfic.livejournal.com]

There's a person on twitter @20877777 who make me feel sick. they claim not to be "anti-homosexual" but rather "pro-God"

what a fucking copout!

[samstjames.livejournal.com]

Oi... that's really disturbing. I can't believe they put something like that up for a vote.
(We never get to vote for anything here.)

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't matter so much if there weren't so many legal benefits to being straight and married in this country. (I think there may be fewer in Europe.)

It's simply not fair at all.

[samstjames.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's not fair. On the other hand... I don't understand why people voted against it - no one would lose anything either way, there's only to gain.

[cowgrrl.livejournal.com]

Exactly. The way I always phrase it is: you can't put minority civil rights up for a majority vote. (But they do. And it's so wrong. It should be unconstitutional.)

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

We don't allow it, historically. These things are generally not decided this way. And there are too many rights which apply to married citizens on the federal level to allow states to vote on this, I believe.

The "Yay! We won at bigotry!" tone of the pics and comments in that newspaper make me so angry.

[amand-r.livejournal.com]

It's funny to notice that most amendments to the constitution have been those allowing something, and not taking something away. I think the only exception is prohibition, and that was amended later to allow booze.

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

I do believe you are correct!

[amand-r.livejournal.com]

I like to think of that whenever somone thinks we need an amendment to the constitution redefining marriage as het. I'm like, "we don't do that to the constitution, kthx."

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

I know.

In what universe should voters get to decide that some people should be discriminated against because... there are fewer of them?

If there were one woman for every ten men, we probably never would have gotten the vote anyway. See, it takes federal legislation to protect the rights of smaller groups of people without the voting power. Arrrgh!

[amand-r.livejournal.com]

This is all a clusterfuck in a lot of ways.

My theory of how I get to cut the baby in half and fix all our problems works really well here. NO MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE. HAPPY NOW?

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

There are many complicated things tied to marriage, like property inheritance and tax laws and the like.

It's actually easier for people to stop telling others what they think their families should look like.

[amand-r.livejournal.com]

Right. I want the legal document. Like civil union. Let the Marriage certificate be optional and handed out by churches.

Legal document:
Party 1 and party2.

[alba17.livejournal.com]

Obviously I agree. The whole thing is disgusting and upsetting. However, DOMA (the ridiculously entitled federal Defense of Marriage Act) bars the federal government from even recognizing same sex marriages. So at this point, it's entirely a state issue, unless DOMA's reversed or there's a US Sup. Ct. decision declaring a federal constitutional right to same -sex marriage, or declaring sexual orientation a suspect class, which would allow people to challenge in federal court state laws that discriminate against gay people (not to mention DOMA itself).

Fortunately (for this issue), only some states allow ballot propositions, which, yeah, allow majority rule.

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

DOMA needs a high court challenge, IMO. It's just bizarre to enact legislation giving a protected status to a group of people based on their choice of life partner.

I'd like to see a protected class status awarded under the Civil Rights Act (in terms of discrimination on other issues for LGBTQ citizens) first, probably. That would likely help.

[mtgat]

Oh Maine, I remember when you were cool. :P

Honestly, it needs a federal case. Civil Rights are a federal issue, and the states are going to have to learn to deal with giving all their citizens equal protection under the law.

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

My friends in Maine are WICKED PISSED.

They said it just like that. WICKED PISSED.

I think they're burning their Bean boots.

[thrace-adams.livejournal.com]

Oh that comment was very well said!!! Thanks for sharing it with us!

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

YW!

I'm sure some legal scholar could probably debate my posish. I'd do it, though!

[shane-mayhem.livejournal.com]

Fucking bollocks.


/brilliant commentary

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

I think your icon says it all.