It looks like a law banning discrimination against gays is going to be on the ballot in Maine for the third time. I admire the persistence of State government, which has twice before enacted similar state laws only to have them repealed via referendum. Undeterred, the legislature and the governor have tried again. I wish them well.
But what struck me most about this article were two passages describing why people oppose this law. The first:
"We just felt like we had to stop it," said Paul Madore . . . . This is a bad law. It uses the weight of the legal system to force an acceptance of a lifestyle that the majority of people have a strong objection to."It does no such thing, of course. All it does is to make it illegal to penalize that lifestyle. Why is it that people keep getting confused on this issue. Oh, and by the way, homosexuality is not a "lifestyle." It is something you are, not something you do.
And, then there was this:
Although the law that passed this year contains an amendment saying it does not endorse same-sex marriage - and although Maine has a defense of marriage law - opponents fear that a judge could declare the marriage law unconstitutional based on the antidiscrimination statute.My Lord. Where do people get these ideas.
The vacuousness of the arguments advanced demonstrates (as if demonstrations were needed) how completely opposition to such laws is rooted in neither logic nor policy but in utterly irrational, unthinking, unfeeling prejudice.
2 comments:
Bill,
It is exactly this kind of thing that makes me conclude that the voter initiative process is generally counterproductive. The premise behind a democratic republic is that elected representatives will consider not only their constituents' points of view, but also the logic of their colleagues on the other side of an issue. (I know, I know...that's a hopelessly idealistic view of things, but hey -- I'm talking "premise", right?) When people try to govern via the public initiative process, all hope of meaningful reflection flies out the window. Instead, the agenda is hijacked by ranting talk-show radio hosts and glib fundraisers.
I applaud the tenacity of the Maine legislature in trying to right an ongoing wrong in its state. Now, the next thing they need to work on is to get rid of the initiative process and let voters elect living, breathing, THINKING people to represent them.
Rob
I'm ambivalent. Our Founders certainly agreed with you, inserting all sorts of "insulators" between the populace and power: indirect election of Senators and the President; the entirely undemocratic Senate itself; checks and balances; etc. But the premise of all of this is that the the people's "represenatives" would be wiser, more rational, less likely to be swayed by the passions of the moment, more foucsed on the greater long term good. There are "representatives" currently in Washington that put that assumption to a genuine test. And, for all the silliness done by voter initiative, sometimes they do show that "the people really do know best. Witness the Oregon "Death With Dignity Act."
Post a Comment