The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875
About Us
Contact Us
Staff
E-mail Edition
home
News
Opinion
Style
Sports
Archives
Print Edition
Last updated: Thursday, Feb. 9, 1:34 a.m.
Opinion

Op-Ed: Majority rule unfair in process for marriage equality

By Samantha Hansen
Posted on Sept. 17, 2009, at 1:51 a.m.

When I testified at the judicial hearing in favor of Maine’s marriage equality law, I had a gut feeling that by the end of the year, I would see a vote on it. Unfortunately, my instincts were correct.

The most common estimation out there suggests that one in ten human beings is homosexual. Sometimes the numbers are higher, sometimes lower. The point is, we are a minority. Barring some disturbing advances in experimental biology, we will remain a minority. Why should the rights of the minority be put in the hands of the majority to be decided upon? Imagine if you had to visit every house in Maine to ask each citizen personally for permission to marry someone. It’s a ridiculous notion, isn’t it? How is the people’s veto on this issue any different?

My objections to this have nothing to do with outcomes. I would be extremely surprised if the marriage equality law was voted down. Mainers have already affirmed gay rights in the past using a referendum: The independent spirit of this state usually affirms the expansion of liberty, not its restriction.

But this is a disturbing way for a minority to gain rights. Why should our liberties depend on the beneficence of the majority? History shows us one of the key functions of our representative democracy is to protect the rights of minorities in the face of hostile majorities. When civil rights were finally affirmed for non-whites in America, it was because of Congress. When state governments refused to protect those rights, the federal government had to send in the National Guard. If it wasn’t for that Congress and that president, the rights of the few would have been the choice of the many.

I’ve heard many argue that they simply don’t care. They don’t think they’ll ever be a part of a minority, so why should they encourage the protection of minority rights? The fact is, they’re wrong. Everyone is in the minority at some point. That’s what it means to be a human being. Even the most average person in America is in the minority because of her averageness. Are you male? Do you have blue eyes? Do you like to wear Crocs? You’re part of a minority.

Others argue that legalizing marriage equality will have drastic effects on our society. They don’t want to see children learn about same-sex unions in school or businesses forced to recognize the rights of these now-legal marriages. I find it presumptuous of any business to tell the state what should or should not be legal. That is why the bill went through so many months of legislative debate. As for the question of public schooling, I don’t have an easy answer. The hard answer is that we cannot ever completely control the environment in which our children grow up, and some have had the bad luck to be a parent during an era when the expansion of freedom has triumphed over outdated societal norms. On the other hand, if your child is in the 10 percent of Mainers who will grow up to be attracted to members of their own sex, would you want them to be discriminated against or shunned?

I encourage you to vote this fall, and I encourage you to vote no on Question 1, which would help make marriage equality a reality in Maine. Just because a system is flawed doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take the opportunity to make lives better. I can’t wait for the bout of parties and ceremonies I’ll get to attend with my friends this winter to celebrate their unions.

But as you vote, watch marriage equality become a reality, and witness the first marriage celebrations, consider why we had to wait this long. If you are a heterosexual, consider why you should even be asked about someone else’s marriage. If you get a chance to contact the federal government, the state government, the governor or president, let them know that you want that ability taken out of your hands. Tell them they don’t need your permission to defend the weak against the arbitrary opinions of the masses.

Samantha Hansen is a third-year political science student.

Campus Currents: ,

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 17th, 2009, 1:51 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.

«
»
  • Andrew

    You are actually deeply mistaken. Majority rule is part of a democracy and if the majority favor the definition of marriage to be a certain way, then there is really no recourse on this. Do you want to know the real reason why CONSITUTIONALLY you have no recourse on this? Because the US Constitution has no protection offered to homosexuals or anything close to it. This is different because there are specific amendments to the constitution that protect people according to color, etc. Therefore, comparisons with interacial marriages fall flat because the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court have ruled on those. Thus for instance, if voters in California or Alabama approved a state constitutional amendment outlawing interacial marriage, it would be unconstitutional because of precedent and higher law. That is not at all the case with same-sex marriage. The only way this could be the case is through a SCOTUS ruling or an amendment to the US Constitution. Otherwise, majority rule is here to stay.

  • http://nabradio.us Gabarus

    Andrew : Unfortunately, you are the one who is deeply mistaken. Majority rule is indeed a part of a pure democracy, however, you do not live in a pure democracy. You live in a Constitutional Democratic Republic, where the majority certainly has the right to weigh in on many issues, but ultimately, do not have final say on matters of civil rights such as same sex marriage. The courts do, and whether the majority likes their rulings or not, in these matters, they are the law of the land.

  • Quinn

    What about the arguement that marriage isn’t a civil right, but a privilege?

  • Basil

    Andrew,

    You are incorrect in your analysis of the existing and emerging body of case law and legal precedent when it comes to gay rights. The Supreme Court struck down (Roemer v. Evans, 1996) a Colorado ballot initiative which stripped LGBT citizens of equal protection under state law, stating that animus toward gays and lesbians was not valid grounds for the state ballot measure, and that it violated the Equal Protection Clause (14th amendment) of the Constitution. In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down remaining laws that criminalize gay/lesbian sexual behavior, as an illegal invasion of privacy.

    The notion of equal protection is not limited to race, religion or ethnic origin. It is tied to citizenship, and holds that one group of citizens cannot be singled out of unequal treatment under the law. It is there precisely to protect unpopular minority groups.

    There is an emerging, though not unanimous, body of state level court rulings striking down prohibitions on same sex marriage as unconstitutional violations of equal protection. Some of these state courts are overruled (California, Prop 8) by ballot initiatives, but given the precedent of Roemer v. Evans, the ballot initiatives themselves are themselves legally suspect. There is current litigation in the Federal Courts on this very question.

    A good reference would be the Iowa Supreme Court ruling (Varnum v. Brien), which is the latest ruling on the subject of same sex marriage. It was approved in a unanimous decision. It is also a relatively short decision (less than 70 pages) and well written — easy for “non-lawyers” to read and understand. I highly recomm

    The issue in Maine is not a court ruling but an act of an elected legislature. Hopefully, the voters of Maine will confirm the work of their legislators and strike down moves to reimpose unequal treatment by voting NO on Question 1.

    Marriage, as far as the government is concerned is a matter of civil law, and all couples deserve equal treatment before the law. It is our tradition as Americans, and what is required of us by the Constitution.