Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, April 8, 2009
Homo Vote on Gay Marriage
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Fundamental civil rights shouldn't be put up for a vote. But if there's gonna be a vote people should vote yes and the Peru Tribune is asking people to vote now: "Should Indiana legalize gay marriage?" Scroll down, it's on the left. Vote! (Via Americablog.)
4
I'm so sick of the "fundamental civil rights shouldn't be put up to a vote" crap. It's like this nonsense rule that somebody just made up and now everyone goes around saying it as if it were some law of nature.
The fact is that the laws of a society get made by votes, by representative legislation, by courts, and by bureaucrats. Sometimes there are wars and revolutions that advance human rights by force. Sometimes human rights are established by quite consensus and custom and enshrined in law as an afterthought. This is all history, and constantly harping on how things should be is disingenuous, particularly when sometimes the vote goes your way and you want to keep that one.
Oh, and of course if this meaningless, non-random web poll/survey nonsense doesn't go your way you can always remind everyone that those things mean diddly sqat. More disingenuousness.
The fact is that the laws of a society get made by votes, by representative legislation, by courts, and by bureaucrats. Sometimes there are wars and revolutions that advance human rights by force. Sometimes human rights are established by quite consensus and custom and enshrined in law as an afterthought. This is all history, and constantly harping on how things should be is disingenuous, particularly when sometimes the vote goes your way and you want to keep that one.
Oh, and of course if this meaningless, non-random web poll/survey nonsense doesn't go your way you can always remind everyone that those things mean diddly sqat. More disingenuousness.
5
Way to go, Dan! Gay marriage is winning by a huge landslide. It's currently about 1800+ votes for gay marriage & 180 against. I'm guessing it's 90% sloggers doing the voting.
6
Any minute now, some blog or newletter will feature the same link and send droves of people to vote the other way.
In the end, an internet poll amounts to nothing.
It's like activism without the active part.
In the end, an internet poll amounts to nothing.
It's like activism without the active part.
7
@4, it's not a "rule," nor is it a "law of nature." It's a simple truth that our system of government is based on. Our representative democracy is supposed to safeguard the minority from having their rights taken away by the majority. I think it would do you good to re-read the Federalist Papers.
Madison: "It may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Madison: "It may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
9
The point, Elenchos, is that the human rights of excluded groups HAVE NEVER been extended by the people who excluded them by a vote, and probably cannot be. It's against human nature. If discriminatory societies were fair-minded they wouldn't be discriminatory in the first place.
Human rights has always been a struggle, and always will be. Even a cursory reading of the history of the extension of civil rights to African-Americans tells you that. The "quiet consensus" (typo assumed) you refer doesn't exist; there was no quiet consensus on black civil rights, not until decades later, and sometimes not even then. These rights were secured through the courts, through the Feds, through protest and sometimes through death. If the US government had waited for a quiet consensus -- or a popular vote -- to defeat Jim Crow in Alabama, they'd be waiting still.
Majorities will always vote "no" on extending rights to minorities, everywhere and in every place. That doesn't mean those rights are wrong.
Human rights has always been a struggle, and always will be. Even a cursory reading of the history of the extension of civil rights to African-Americans tells you that. The "quiet consensus" (typo assumed) you refer doesn't exist; there was no quiet consensus on black civil rights, not until decades later, and sometimes not even then. These rights were secured through the courts, through the Feds, through protest and sometimes through death. If the US government had waited for a quiet consensus -- or a popular vote -- to defeat Jim Crow in Alabama, they'd be waiting still.
Majorities will always vote "no" on extending rights to minorities, everywhere and in every place. That doesn't mean those rights are wrong.
10
@4
You refer to "this nonsense rule that somebody just made up." It's actually called the constitution. Compare, for example, Athenian direct democracy with the U.S. version of constitutional representative democracy. I'll take the latter, thank you.
Oh, and we (the gays) are currently winning the Peru Tribune poll 94%-6%.
You refer to "this nonsense rule that somebody just made up." It's actually called the constitution. Compare, for example, Athenian direct democracy with the U.S. version of constitutional representative democracy. I'll take the latter, thank you.
Oh, and we (the gays) are currently winning the Peru Tribune poll 94%-6%.
11
I agree that having endless referendums is no way to get anything done. The argument in favor of letting representatives hash out new laws instead of putting every little thing up to a vote is not based on any principle that big things all belong to the courts and little things belong to the people. That's silly.
The idea that the courts all handed civil rights to blacks is massively simplistic. The 14th amendment was watered down by one court decision after another. It took years of activism, and legislation, and executive action, to start to make progress. And still voting rights were denied decade after decade. It took executive action -- not simply courts -- to force state governors and school boards to obey the law.
And still subtle racism persisted, and still persists. Most of the time the opinions of judges didn't mean squat in the real world.
And I remind you that you'll be happy to take any victory you can at the ballot box. Don't pretend you'll turn your nose up at that.
And I cannot fathom why so many people think the most desirable path to victory is to have courts shove a decision down the throats of a population against their will. Although it certainly explains why so many gay rights activists work so hard to be unpopular.
The idea that the courts all handed civil rights to blacks is massively simplistic. The 14th amendment was watered down by one court decision after another. It took years of activism, and legislation, and executive action, to start to make progress. And still voting rights were denied decade after decade. It took executive action -- not simply courts -- to force state governors and school boards to obey the law.
And still subtle racism persisted, and still persists. Most of the time the opinions of judges didn't mean squat in the real world.
And I remind you that you'll be happy to take any victory you can at the ballot box. Don't pretend you'll turn your nose up at that.
And I cannot fathom why so many people think the most desirable path to victory is to have courts shove a decision down the throats of a population against their will. Although it certainly explains why so many gay rights activists work so hard to be unpopular.
12
Last week's Iowa Supreme Court ruling suggests the judicial and logical framework for "fundamental rights shouldn't be put up for a vote."
The court carefully demonstrated that a popular vote that limits the civil rights of a class of people not powerful enough to resist politically violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution (of Iowa, which the court noted is similar to the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection clause).
The court ruled that when it comes to fundamental rights, Equal Protection trumps a popular vote. Accordingly, even holding a popular vote on fundamental rights is an attempt to violate the Constitution. And really, how dumb is that?
The court carefully demonstrated that a popular vote that limits the civil rights of a class of people not powerful enough to resist politically violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution (of Iowa, which the court noted is similar to the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection clause).
The court ruled that when it comes to fundamental rights, Equal Protection trumps a popular vote. Accordingly, even holding a popular vote on fundamental rights is an attempt to violate the Constitution. And really, how dumb is that?
13
Although it certainly explains why so many gay rights activists work so hard to be unpopular.I will never understand you. So reasonable sometimes, so snarky at others.
16
@11 - Nobody's saying that no "big things" should be decided by popular vote, only this one big thing--the rights of minorities. And no one said having courts decide these things is the "most desirable path to victory," either. Of course we would all prefer a popular consensus, but that's not going to happen in the case of gay rights for a long time, sadly. Court decisions--based on the Constitution and established precedent--are the most realistic path to victory, not necessarily the most desirable. The point, of course, is the victory--not by any means, but by legal and rational means. Court decisions meet those criteria just fine. The judiciary is an EQUAL branch of our government, and always has been. Matters decided by the courts are in no way subordinate to matters decided by the legislative or executive branches.
17
Shameful...this is your idea of fun. Inundating polls, I want to see you promote this same thing but in real life. Then see how many votes you get for your side. Reality is a bitch.
19
Courts are not the only way, Elenchos. Courts lead the way, sometimes; it's a successful and valid strategy. It's all part of a process of building a consensus. Executive action is too. Popular votes on the rights of minorities are not; they are counterproductive.
21
Well now I can't tell if this is about how things should be done in a perfect world or what the most effective realpolitik strategy is. I guess in a perfect world none of this would be necessary.
I will say that what's been done up to know hasn't worked so well, so if they're thinking of a new tack, I'm all for it.
I will say that what's been done up to know hasn't worked so well, so if they're thinking of a new tack, I'm all for it.
22
@21 - What's the point of arguing what should be done in a perfect world? It's not a perfect world. It's like building an airplane based on the physics of the moon.
And what hasn't worked so well? I'm not sure which side you mean needs a new tack, but gay rights are advancing quickly in the past several years. Not fast enough for those being discriminated against, of course, but for social and political and legal change, it's going pretty fast, and accelerating. How many states had legalized gay marriage in 2004? How many now? The fact that the bigots are up in arms and increasingly visible and aggressive is just a sign that we're winning. No one expects them to just suddenly be tolerant. They're going to fight. But their children will be much more tolerant, and their grandchildren will think they were nuts.
And what hasn't worked so well? I'm not sure which side you mean needs a new tack, but gay rights are advancing quickly in the past several years. Not fast enough for those being discriminated against, of course, but for social and political and legal change, it's going pretty fast, and accelerating. How many states had legalized gay marriage in 2004? How many now? The fact that the bigots are up in arms and increasingly visible and aggressive is just a sign that we're winning. No one expects them to just suddenly be tolerant. They're going to fight. But their children will be much more tolerant, and their grandchildren will think they were nuts.
23
3,514 votes - 95% in favor of Indiana legalizing Gay marriage:
THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!
MAKE IT SO!
LONG LIVE DIRECT DEMOCRACY!
THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!
MAKE IT SO!
LONG LIVE DIRECT DEMOCRACY!
25
Guess her God wasn't really interested in protecting her; maybe he had more important things to do.
In the immortal words of Chief Wiggam: "Yah, where's your deity NOW, Simpson?"
In the immortal words of Chief Wiggam: "Yah, where's your deity NOW, Simpson?"
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (25) RSS