Peder D4

Discussion of politics and other odious things

Monday, October 15, 2012

Speaking Back

In a few weeks, we voters of Minnesota will vote on an amendment declaring that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.  I'm a supporter of gay marriage (GM) and will be voting 'no' to this amendment.  But I've grown increasingly tired of the weak arguments that other gay marriage supporters keep throwing out.  Instead of stewing about them, I decided to just let them out on this little read blog.
  • "If the amendment fails, gay marriage still won't be legal!"  That's true but only in a limited sense.  There are cases moving through the judiciary in MN right now to make GM legal.  Recent history has shown that it will only take one friendly judge to make it so.  The anti-GM people want to make a move before this happens and from a strategic standpoint, it's hard to blame them.
  • "We don't vote on rights!"  I keep running into this anti-historical claim and I don't understand it.  Voting rights were expanded in this country by amendment, not by the judiciary.  Should the suffragettes simply have kept court shopping until they got the vote?  The truth is that we vote on rights all the time (at least by through the proxy of representatives).  Recently we've voted on gun rights and smokers rights in fairly high profile cases.  
  • "We don't vote on minority rights!"  There is some logic to this but it's wildly undercut by the fact that a great deal of GM supporters spent the last year vilifying a literal 1% of the population.  They have no problem voting on their property rights.  It's true that we use special precautions in regards to minorities and I have no problem with that but it's false to say that their rights are simply beyond the public will.  
  • "Gay marriage is inevitable!"  Fine, then let history take it's course.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if gay marriage does become widely available (probably nationwide) in the next twenty years or so.  The biggest set back for this would be if it was jammed down the throats of the opposition by the judiciary.  Take a look at abortion and how Roe v Wade simply entrenched both sides.
  • "Opposition to gay marriage is hatred!"  I can't look into people's hearts and minds.  The truth is that in the very few spaces where I've seen someone outline why GM is bad it has always seemed calm and rational.  Deciding other people's motives is always tricky.  I have a nagging suspicion that the 99% vs the 1% crap is largely motivated by hatred and jealousy.  Does that mean I can simply ignore the people that feel otherwise?
There's a common thread in these arguments.  They don't try and argue someone away from a policy, they seek to de-legitimize any opposing argument.  In other words, you are not allowed to vote to keep this definition of marriage.  This doesn't seem kosher to me. 



Post a Comment

<< Home