51stcenturyfox (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
51stcenturyfox) wrote2009-11-04 10:44 am
51stcenturyfox) wrote2009-11-04 10:44 am
"Civil rights should not be put up for a vote"
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
I honestly dont see the difference. it just strikes me dumb tbh... dont understand at all.