What Thomas Jefferson Would Think of Maine Voting on Other People's Rights

There is only one thing worse than voting to deny somebody their rights: Voting to give it to them.

Sometimes I wonder how the framers of the Constitution would react to Maine's vote this Tuesday on whether gay people should keep their right to marry.

I'm pretty sure Jefferson would weep.

And the others would share his hankie. For this must be the founding father's nightmare: Seeing one group of Americans go into the voting booth to take away the rights of another.

This Tuesday, Maine citizens will vote on whether gay people should retain the right to marry as per a state law that currently allows them to do so. The last poll shows that people who want to take away that right are winning 51-47. That's still within the margin of error, but at this point it doesn't look good. The fat lady ain't sung, but she's clearing her voice.

Frankly, I don't know which would be worse--voting to repeal or uphold the state law allowing gay marriage. No matter which way you vote, you've wiped your feet on the Constitution.

There is only one thing worse than voting to deny somebody their rights: Voting to give it to them. Because the very idea that you have the power to grant or deny somebody the rights you enjoy negates the ideal of the Constitution--that all men are created equal. (Women, too, but let's not quibble).

How can I be equal to you if you get to vote on my relationship? How can you be equal to me if I have the power to set the government against you? No matter what side you're on, no matter what the result of the final tally, voting is the enemy of equality.

As Maine voters hover in the voting booth reading the Proposal that will affect the lives of millions of their fellow citizens, I wonder if it will occur to any of them to think: "I shouldn't have the right to vote on somebody else's rights."

How gay marriage strengthens straight marriage

I'm gay and not sold on gay marriage

Where does gay marriage rank in the top ten reasons why heterosexuals divorce?

 

Follow Mike Alvear on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikealvear

Comments

[TamChin]

As a spouse in an interracial marriage, this issue of affording the Civil Right of marriage to gay people is personal for me. And the anti-gay marriage movement has my dander up. So I posted a piece myself on my blog... which has no readers but myself, but the picture of my cat is nice.
http://bombasticverses.blogspot.com/

[LintLass]

While it's certainly true that it's wrong to be voting to deny civil rights and equality to Americans, ir really just does -not- follow that it's somehow 'worse' to vote to defeat such an initiative.

No, it shouldn't be necessary, but there we are.

[soisay]

Fantastic analysis! This is the purpose of the judiciary, to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Add that "originalists" are absurd in their thinking. It was "originally" ok to own slaves, treat women and children as property, and only land owners met as lawmakers. I would no more want to live in that country than behind the iron curtain.

[CanadianBeef]

It is sad debate, indeed. This is one of those tyranny-of-the-majority issues. Most people aren't gay, so are are prone to vote down the rights of people who are. The most hateful and homophobic people can be expected to campaign the hardest against the rights of the minority, helping to set neighbor against neighbor.
I thought it was more correct for the courts to rule on this issue. It is the role of the courts to interpret the Constitution, and it is the Constitution that established rights.

[luvobama]

Fanned!!!! You said it all.