I received this message from a reader named Mike Schryver…
I read your comment on Prop. 8, and noted your stance that it would be better if the public voted directly to allow marriage equality. As a gay man, I wonder if you've considered this aspect of it: It's galling to have other people believe they get to vote on your rights. Imagine that a measure was proposed forbidding people over 6' tall to own property. I think that not only would you question the logic of voting on this, you'd be insulted that others believed they should be able to turn your life into a political football.
I'm not angry with you for suggesting these votes should take place. I'm just wondering if you've considered this side of the issue. None of the gains in the '60s civil rights struggle occurred by popular vote. They only came after court decisions affirmed that it was improper for the majority to limit the rights of a minority. That's where this will end up eventually, as you pointed out.
I always enjoy reading your blog. Thanks.
I'm sure it must be galling to have people voting on your basic rights as a human being. I'm assuming though that having them vote to acknowledge them and repudiate the infringers would be less galling than having them vote to take those rights away. The former would, I suspect, go a long way towards stopping those kinds of votes anywhere if the opponents of gay rights lost a biggie, which is what I believe would happen if California got to vote on this again.
It must also gall many that judges and politicians are voting on whether gays are entitled to simple basic human equality. This should not be an issue at all…but alas, it is.
America did vote on civil rights in the sixties but not by clear referendum. They voted by electing leaders with explicit platforms. A vote for Strom Thurmond was a vote for limiting the civil rights of "coloreds." And since you gave me an opening, I'll mention something here that I'm increasingly coming to believe.
Back when we did have that racial issue in this country — back when there were those still arguing for school segregation and other divisions by skin color — no one personified that side more than Governor George Wallace of Alabama. He was the guy who stood in the door at the University of Alabama in a symbolic attempt to stop two black students from entering.
Several biographies of Wallace that have been written the last decade or two have all said this about him: That he really didn't care that much about if blacks were integrated and didn't think it could be stopped. He just thought it was a good issue to ride at the time to get himself elected. He was interested in power and money…and some of those bios say that getting laid a lot was even more important to him and that his proud racism attracted a lot of ladies.
Anyway, whether that was true of Wallace or not, I'm increasingly coming to believe that the vast majority of politicians out there crusading against Gay Marriage just view it as an issue that's useful in pursuit of other goals. A few like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum may really feel it in their hearts…but to the Newts and the Mitts and so many others, it's just a way of rallying the troops and getting campaign donations. They used to use Flag Burning that way but it wasn't as effective.
Getting back to what you asked me, Mike: Yes, I did consider what you asked and I think it's a disgrace that there are any votes by anyone — citizens, judges, state senators, anyone — on whether a whole class of people is entitled to basic human dignity. But I also think that the sooner we get to the day when this is no longer red meat for political rallies, the better.
That will come with the mass population accepting it, not just with it being forced on those who presently have a problem with it. The courts can make it legal but opponents of Gay Marriage will cry "judicial activism" as a rallying cry to redouble their efforts. What will make the matter really go away is if those crusaders realize they can't win a vote of the people. I think.