Way to pull a California. It was a close vote, but 53% won out against gay marriage in Maine. The most frustrating thing about this was the way gay-marriage opponents campaigned: by claiming that gay marriage was going to be taught in schools. This is absolutely ridiculous. Their logic is if gay marriage is legal, schools will have to teach about same-sex unions in the classroom. My question is, when did we ever learn about marriage in school? I don't know about you, but I never had a "marriage" class (although they should probably have a "relationships" class, seriously). And my math, science, english, history or economics teachers never sat us down to talk about marriage. We talked about math, science, english, history and economics.
The sad thing is that Maine, part of the notoriously liberal New England, is becoming a symbol of the intolerance of our nation towards those who don't share the puritanical beliefs of our ancestors (I won't even say forefathers here, come on guys, it was 300 years ago, a lot has changed). Maine now joins the ranks of 31 states which have banned gay marriage through popular vote. The 5 states (Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut) who have legalized gay marriage? All did so through legislation and court rulings. Any time it's been put to a vote, the people have banned gay marriage. So I ask: what are these people afraid of? Will allowing homosexuals to get hitched bring down the institution of marriage? Do they think that gay marriage will make their union mean less? That it will change the meaning of their commitment? Or are they worried it'll ruin their hetero club? I thought we were done with discriminating against people for the way they were born.
There will probably be a recount, but I doubt the vote will change. My hope is that it's just a generational thing--give it forty or fifty years and everyone who voted against will have died. However, that's a lot of time to indoctrinate our children with their parent's beliefs. Maybe by then we'll have found a new set of people to discriminate against.
I think that we should have civil unions for everyone in addition to whatever religious wedding a couple wants or needs. I know in Europe couples can marry twice-before a judge (the one that counts) and in the church. The one that counts as far as the government is concerned is the civil union. This makes sense to me. It is the contract that the government should be interested in, not these other issues which are really a reflection of the religious beliefs of various groups. I am disappointed in these reversals of what I think should be a basic right.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Maine gays. You're still not quite human.
ReplyDeleteThese conditions will ONLY change though legal avenues and eventually the supreme court, not through a vote.
The problem with gay-marriage referendums is, it's about civil rights. Civil rights exist because your legal status shouldn't depend on popular opinion. If we'd had referendums in 1964 about the Civil Rights Act, it would still be illegal for Heidi Klum to marry Seal.
Seems silly, right?
That's because it is.