"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

[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.