The forthcoming Nov. 3 Maine referendum, which will determine whether same-sex marriages, recently legalized in the state, will remain legal, looks to be a major trendsetter for the rest of the nation.
The current polls indicate that the race, as with most referendums about same-sex marriage, will be very close. Yet again, just like California with Proposition 8, voters will go to the polls to either reaffirm the right of gays and lesbians to wed or to strip them of that right.
How great it is that, in the true spirit of democratic values, citizens of Maine will be able to voice their opinions and confer or deny the right to marriage.
In fact, in the spirit of democracy and majority rule, I propose that the voters of Maine also be given the opportunity to vote on referendums about interracial marriage, marriage between Jews and Christians and the rich and poor. Should the voters of Maine choose to outlaw interracial marriage, let us, as a nation, laud their devotion to democratic majority rule values. I say let the voters decide all the time, every time.
Now naturally, I jest and would never actually advocate that interracial, interreligious or interclass marriages be outlawed. I would equally never give voters the opportunity to decide whether or not to confer these rights or to deny them to other citizens.
The tyranny of the majority should never be allowed to determine the nature or extent of civil rights. Same-sex marriage opponents argue that marriage is a privilege and not a right.
I unequivocally disagree with that position: Marriage is a de facto right, since opposite-sex marriage has never really been in question. Would anyone actually take a campaign to end opposite-sex marriage seriously, or for that matter, would same-sex marriage opponents’ opinions not likely change? Heterosexuals against gay marriage most definitely would change their tune to claim that marriage is a right, were their civil rights to be threatened.
As we witnessed with California’s Prop 8, opponents of same-sex marriage didn’t think twice about disenfranchising and oppressing others.
To me, it is highly ironic that same-sex marriage opponents are most terrified of same-sex marriage because they believe it will destroy “traditional” marriage. Thus, in order to preserve their notion of marriage, which they perceive as being threatened by same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage opponents will trample over the civil rights of millions and set a dangerous precedent of discrimination and oppression.
I urge same-sex marriage proponents to take a page out of the playbook of same-sex marriage opponents. Perhaps in our campaigns we should advocate for a ban on interracial marriages, not seriously of course, in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy and blatant ignorance of the argument that marriage is not a right. In any event, come November, I, along with millions of others in the nation, will be holding my breath, hoping that we don’t suffer another defeat in Maine.
