We talk a lot around here about voting on rights – basically, rights are rights because you are born to them; you don't vote on rights. That's a principle, but there's also the practice. In January, activists in Maine decided to ask voters directly for marriage equality. They had already gathered the signatures needed for a referendum, and then they decided to go for it.
Now comes Ohio, where activists for marriage equality say they've finished the first step for getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot. They say they've got the 1,700 signatures required in Ohio before the amendment's language can be accepted for the ballot. If they pass that test, they can then begin collecting the 385,000 signatures needed for a referendum perhaps as early as this fall. From the Columbus Dispatch:
Phil Burress, of the Cincinnati-based group Citizens for Community Values, said that if same-sex marriage supporters put the issue on the ballot this fall "they can kiss (President Barack) Obama goodbye." Burress' group was instrumental in passing the 2004 amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, an issue credited by some with helping President George W. Bush to win a second term.
"I guess they're feeling their oats because seven states have same-sex marriage," Burress said. "They're going to have their hands full. We're prepared to meet them on the field of battle."
Ohio currently has a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage rights. The new measure would offer marriage as "a union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender." Nationwide, marriage equality has lost in referendums by 33 to 1. None of this makes asking for a referendum in Ohio or Maine foolhardy or smart, either one. But they are different from what has gone before.
(Video: God bless Defiance, Ohio, which held its first gay pride march in October.)
Leave a Comment:
Referendums are a terrible idea. First, human rights ire intrinsic, not democratic. Second, by choosing the avenue of a referendum (a democratic process), this devalues in voters minds the intrinsic value of the right, leading them to believe that this is a majority issue. Everything is perception, this changes the perception of marriage equality in voters minds, a very dangerous precedent.
My little shih tzu is alarmed bec I am crying as I watch the video....how embarrassing for us as humans, as citizens of this country, to realize that some of our friends, neighbors, relatives, doctors, lawyers, teachers and more know they are not accepted in our society; how sad that we blithely go about our way as our fellow humans are reduced to asking for acceptance, let alone respect. The disgrace is ours for allowing this cruel false superiority of heterosexuals to persist; it is our shame...and it IS our responsibility to address and correct it.
My criteria for judging others: I like and value honest, kind, good people; I don't like and want to avoid dishonest, cruel bad people...and the determination of good and bad rests on their treatment of others in all areas of their lives
Humanity the noun includes all humans, the adjective the quality of being human. We are all in this together, like it or not. While you are busy dehumanizing others, you truly dehumanize yourself.
Some don't like referendums. Others, like myself are sick of hearing from our own people..."not the right time"...Not the right way to go about it"... "Let's wait until next year"
Seriously... STONEWALL was over 40 years ago. We're STILL not equal.
A referendum may not be the way EVERYONE would like to go at this... But at least some, myself included, are working hard ...AT SOMETHING rather than doing nothing and criticizing others.
Hey Tom....thanks for clarifying what was bothering me about the criticism of having a referendum; the Black Panthers formed when the nonviolence approach of MLK failed to bring about changes needed. No! I'm not advocating violence...just saying I can see the problem of waiting...waiting...waiting. Sometimes pushing further is the only way to get people out of their comfort with the status quo as it affects just them.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, so I see the ref route as appropriate, and hope that during the process there will be public reminders of the human rights involved. We are a nation that has misused laws in the past to enforce personal views that contradict our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
My son was SO antigay until one day, as a teenager, he watched The Birdcage and recognized, for the first time, that gay people are people, not "gay people" as distinct from "people."
I hate the label, myself. Wish we could get past it.
It isn't that people are cynical about the method. At the end of the day getting there is always a good thing. It's just that we have to consider this in terms of law since that's what we're dealing with. If this measure is a ballot measure to pass a law, as opposed to a state constitutional amendment, then the law will immediately have to be challenged in court or else it will be thrown out since it violates the constitution. But the whole idea that someone can vote on rights or past amendments on rights is at the heart of the debate because people continually use that measure to deny rights. So it's a quid-pro-quo. No one is saying that your efforts aren't valiant for trying to bring equality to your state. People are just discussing the ramifications from a legal and moral perspective. My hope would be that you could understand the difference.
A bad idea. We should be saying with one voice that it is NEVER okay to vote on human rights. I keep hoping that some judge will have the courage to stop a vote on this issue; perhaps it will happen this year in Washington state.
Why oh why do people keep quoting Phil Buress and his hate group? Please media, stop giving this homophobic nut job time and attention. As a lifetime citizen of Cincinnati, Ohio and gay woman I am not foolish enough to think that the great buckle on the Bible belt state of Ohio is going to pass anything that might make my life easier especially when the media gives all it's attention to the likes of Citizens of Community Values. In Ohio if your not a rich white Tea party Patriot your nothing more than fodder for their hate so good luck to you sweet young hopefuls trying to get this on the ballot...btw Phils office is in Reading, Ohio right next to the drivers exam station if you would like his signature I'm sure he would love to meet you but make sure you call Fox and WCPO news before you go he likes his screen time.
Can we make that part of the argument and every effort for equality? You are right...it is a disgrace that we even have to fight for equality of our citizens for any reason...as all women know, I think.
One thing I know for sure, after Prop 8 passed narrowly in CA, there were simultaneous rallies to voice resistance. In our location, we thanked voters for NOT passing it. No, we didn't vote for it in the county I live. One other place was in Ohio! My friend's straight sister was there- IN THE RAIN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rojt9DUyJgM
Thank you!
But the point is, it should not be the case to vote away rights.
The pious seem to have a never ending list of people to hate. Let's see, there were the protestants, the Jews, orientals, American and East Indians, blacks, and Hispanics to name a few. Different colors, beliefs, life-styles and women who do not know their place are belittled, persecuted or ignored in the name of God, patriotism and convenience. Hell even the Irish had their turn. I doubt anyone signed up to be on the wrong side of white or religious supremacy. We are a product of the genes we were born with and not here to make you uncomfortable. Repression and denial will not make any of us go away.
"basically, rights are rights because you are born to them; you don't vote on rights."
If I may respectfully disagree with this line?
Because the geographical locale of our birthplace happens, very luckily, to be the USA, we are given the privilege of certain civil rights and liberties. It has nothing to do with birth, it has to do with location.
There was a time when African-Americans, born right here in the US, absolutely did not have any rights. Bloodshed and sacrifice got them those rights, the same rights others were granted from birth. Women too had to sacrifice to be counted equal, and now gays and lesbians are fighting the same battle.
There's been times when our nation has found itself under threat and more bloodshed and sacrifice was needed to keep danger off our shores, as good men and women were called to duty in the armed forces. Should they not have served and died for their nation, following generations in the US might well have been 'born with" no rights or liberties at all. What we have is not a birthright.
There has been some chipping away at our civil liberties under the name of "security" where a bit of free speech, a bit of privacy was given up by the many, a bit of fair trial was given up by a few. Could you do that, if rights were innate upon birth? No. The fact is, more chipping can and will take place under the facade of numerous noble reasons if we don't safeguard the freedoms we have in this country. Our liberties are fully capable of being curtailed to the same point where so many other countries are today, human beings shedding blood and making sacrifices to obtain that which we feel we are "born" to, democracy. The only difference between them and us is vigilance.
We in the US only have the rights and liberties granted to us by the hard work of those who once used compassion and a long view to create the Constitution. And because the founding fathers didn't get it perfect, we have a history of those who fought to attach each and every Article to it. And because the Articles are not perfect, we have protests and conflict today so that more people in this country can have the same civil rights as the rest. And over it all, at any time, we and our children could be as stripped of our civil rights as any other nation. The Constitution cannot stop that from happening, only the good people protecting it can stop that from happening.
I do not believe any human being is "born" with rights, we have them by privilege, we could lose them by negligence, and we should share them with those who still go without.
Thank you
Then you believe that, then you believe we have no rights. If "rights" exist only by privilege, then rights are in fact only privileges.
The whole point of natural-rights democracy is that there is a non-negotiable baseline: humans have inherent, inalienable rights simply because they are human. Take that away and you really have no defense. Infringing on people's rights in the name of security is an outrage. Taking away privileges in the same of security is just fine. After all, what's wrong with losing privileges if the circumstances warrant that? It's not as if you have any rights.
The CCV main office is in my town of Sharonville, OH. I have to walk past their offices every time I have to go to the BMV (we have a bureau, not a department). Feel like I need a shower afterward.
I will happily be one of the 385,000+ who will sign this and bring marriage equality to the Buckeye State!