The argument that same-sex marriage would open the doors to polygamy should be a non-starter. Maine’s Human Rights Act protects against discrimination based upon race, color, sex, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, ancestry or national origin. The Law makes illegal discrimination based upon sexual orientation, it does not make illegal discrimination based upon a desire for multiple spouses.
The argument that there is no right to marry and thus denial of marriage to same-sex couples is not a violation of rights should also be a non-starter. There is no right to a driver’s license. Still, the State would be in clear and blatant violation of its own laws if it refused to issue a driver’s license based upon an individual’s sexual orientation. Not because a driver’s license is a basic human right, but because the State must treat individuals equally under the Law irrespective of their sexual orientation. It seems equally clear to many of us that the State is in blatant violation of its own Laws by denying marriage to same-sex couples.
Many opponents of same-sex marriage are indignant when they are referred to as bigots, discriminators or haters. Denying equality through the democratic process is every bit as discriminatory as turning away a restaurant patron because he is gay. Treating homosexuals with intolerance—denying homosexuals equality as prescribed by Law is intolerance—is the very definition of bigotry.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Tyranny of the Majority
Those who supported the repeal of Maine’s same-sex marriage bill have made many references to “majority rules” over the past few days. This tyranny of a majority was a concern of the founding fathers of the United States. James Madison (writing to Thomas Jefferson) asked: when “a majority, united by a common interest or a passion, cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found?”
These and other concerns led to the separation of powers built into the US Constitution and to the Bill of Rights which protects individual freedoms. These rights cannot be amended by a mere majority; an amendment to the Constitution must be ratified by three quarters of the states.
John Stuart Mill wrote in his essay, On Liberty, published in 1859:
“Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”
Today we face a social tyranny of the majority which has manifested itself in the political oppression of a minority.
These and other concerns led to the separation of powers built into the US Constitution and to the Bill of Rights which protects individual freedoms. These rights cannot be amended by a mere majority; an amendment to the Constitution must be ratified by three quarters of the states.
John Stuart Mill wrote in his essay, On Liberty, published in 1859:
“Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”
Today we face a social tyranny of the majority which has manifested itself in the political oppression of a minority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
