Marriage Equality: Down in Defeat

I have a question for Maine's Yes-on-1 voters: Will you have the guts to tell your children and grandchildren (not just today but in a generation from now) what you did, how you pulled the lever in favor of discrimination? Just curious.

Comments

[Phil Nelson]

'course they won't. Cowardice and denial are two of the primary traits of the bigot. There's a reason the Klan wears hoods.

[Aaron Kinney]

Another reason why democracy fails every time. Popular opinion is no way to craft policy.

[marriage]

I agree the comments above that popular opinion is no way to craft policy,its gonna be a good subject to explore.

winnie

[Mike]

While I personally feel Maine screwed this one up. I don't see how anything other than popular opinion would be a better system.

What's the alternative? How do you give some group who doesn't have a popular majority the power to dictate this stuff?

I would be curious if the question were phrased to keep marriage a religious ceremony and keep the government out. If that would have passed.

[Marty]

'While I personally feel Maine screwed this one up. I don't see how anything other than popular opinion would be a better system.'

imo, popular opinion isn't supposed to circumvent individual rights.

[Aaron Kinney]

Re: Mike,

" I don't see how anything other than popular opinion would be a better system.

What's the alternative? How do you give some group who doesn't have a popular majority the power to dictate this stuff?"

Instead of a coerced one-size-fits-all popularity contest, why not abolish the monopoly completely?

There should not even be monopoly policy affecting everyone, especially with things like these. This whole marriage thing should never have even been voted on in the first place.

You begged the question in that you presupposed that any group should be able to "dictate" anything to another group. The answer to your question is: No, without democracy, there would be NO WAY for a group of people to dictate rules to another group. That is the entire point.

My goodness, its like asking how we are supposed to continue organized crime without criminal organizations! The point is to not continue the practice, specifically by removing the mechanism used to do so.

[Mike]

" No, without democracy, there would be NO WAY for a group of people to dictate rules to another group"

Without democracy it would be pretty darn easy to do this. I doubt this issue would come up in say the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I haven't checked but I'm pretty sure you gay marriage doesn't exist there.

To some limited extent people shouldn't be able to dictate behavior in another group especially for issues where no one is harmed. Harm is the key issue there. I personally am all for forcing Christian Scientists to provide medical care for thier children. I'd guess die-hard anti-gay bigots really believe your committing your soul to hell for committing sodomy, Their bigots but at least not hippocrits. The more common lets keep gays second class 'for the children' crowd are also hippocrits.

Legalizing Gay Marriage still seems like the incorrect question to be put on the table. Striking the word Marriage from government and adding 'partner' seems better (still not completely happy as I know several lifetime 3-somes). That question seems like it may actually have a better shot at passing.

[Don]

@Marty
imo, popular opinion isn't supposed to circumvent individual rights.

++++++++++++++++++++
cognitive dissonance...

Yes, Marty, that is exactly what democracy does, it favors mob rule over the rights of the individuals.

...you can't have it both ways, mob rule and individualism.

[Aaron Kinney]

RE: Mike,

"Without democracy it would be pretty darn easy to do this. I doubt this issue would come up in say the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I haven't checked but I'm pretty sure you gay marriage doesn't exist there. "

Ok let me revise my past statement: Without a monopoly rule (whether democracy, monarchy, etc) there would be NO WAY for a group of people to dictate rules to another group.

You should note that mentioning the monarchy of Saudi Arabia doesn't help your argument. When you point out that Saudi Arabia also has no gay marriage rights, you (accidentally) admit that Democracy is just as repressive and unfair (ie: Maine's popular vote against gays).

Monopolies are all equally bad, whether its a popular opinion monopoly or the monopoly of a king.

"Harm is the key issue there. I personally am all for forcing Christian Scientists to provide medical care for thier children."

I'm no fan of religion, but popular opinion shouldn't be used to force Christian Scientists to get medical care any more than popular opinion should be used to prevent gays from marrying. Isn't it true that, to Christians, being gay is a form of "harm"?

If we allow ourselves to wield power to force people to get medical care, couldn't that same power be wielded to force gays to submit to heterosexual-therapy? Or force bloggers to write certain things? Or any number of atrocities?

The enemy here is not the Christian who doesn't like gays, or doesn't get medical care. The enemy here is the idea that we can bludgeon our way to social progress through some coercive, one-size-fits-all monopolistic form of rule, whether it is rule by popular opinion or rule by divine right or whatever.

"Legalizing Gay Marriage still seems like the incorrect question to be put on the table."

I agree with you 100% on this point. Gay marriage shouldn't be something to be "legalized" or "criminalized." There should be no law either way on the subject, because gay marriage is not something that should be legislated in any way shape or form.

[Mike]

Well my only point with Saudi Arabia was it was an example of a non-democratic society that is repressive. I'm not sure I'd say Maine=Saudi Arabia yet. Last time I was there I'm pretty sure I saw a woman in a bathing suit and she wasn't being flogged.

Democracy just seems like the best option. The only better solution for this problem seems to be anarchy.

I don't think it is as clear cut for Christian Scientists in my opinion as far as thier children go. If your an adult I don't care what you do to yourself but Religious Beliefs shouldn't be allowed to prevent medical treatment. If we convict drug addicts of endangering thier own children the same situation seems relavant to children of odd religious beliefs. Questions starting with 'why' in my opinion has no place in the law.

[disinter]

You don't realize that this law was discriminatory to others as well?

Government has no business being involved with marriage. A real libertarian would understand this.