Democracy and Gay Marriage Legalization: A Dichotomy

Massachusetts’s state legislature voted against a statewide referendum to resolve the gay marriage issue.

Let me just say this: I know little to nothing about Massachusetts’s law. If this blog suggests any legal expertise, let me apologize right here and now.

To start, though, there are two rules we all play by for living in a democracy:
a.) the possibility of policies being in place with which we personally disagree, and
b.) that we have to convince a ton of people of our points of view before we can affect change.

With judiciaries stacked with legislators, issue b is negated. I no longer have to convince my fellow citizen of what ought to be; I need only convince a majority of my state’s Supreme Court Justices. (If I happen to be guiding the ship as one of said Justices, issue a is also negated.)

The Supreme Court didn’t legislatively find for society a way to deem slavery unconstitutional. Their ratification process of Reconstruction Amendments weren’t ideal, but nonetheless it was left to constitutional processes to ratify the end of slavery. The same can be said for women’s suffrage; early 20th-century suffragists didn’t sue to force Justices to legislate on their behalf – they engaged society, and eventually society demanded women receive the right to vote.

I greatly suspect that had, for instance, the abortion issue been resolved democratically – one way or the other – it wouldn’t be nearly as huge an issue today. Why is that? Because our various representatives would have voted on our behalves, as opposed to a group of justices imposing their collective opinion. I firmly believe that a democratic process creates greater lasting power and a more heightened legal legitimacy.

As for me, I have seen/heard/read nothing to suggest the collective gay marriage legalization movement intends to heed the aforementioned two rules for living democratically. Reiterating my ignorance of Massachusetts’s law, my outsider’s perspective leads me to think that a referendum would at least permit democracy -- and the inevitable subsequent public dialogue – to dictate the whim of the people before the law is codified.

Words are powerful things. If I own a jeep, and want to be recognized as a convertible (for the public recognition of being a convertible-owner), I might just say that by virtue of my vehicle having an open top, it too should be labeled a convertible. Then you come along with your vehicle that has a closed sun roof, and demand the same thing. My neighbor might then show up with their beater Kia after having sawed the roof off and also demand convertible status.

What we’ve created is a anarchy of lexicon built on a public confusion behind the word, “convertible.” If, in fact, everything is a convertible, then being a convertible means nothing. This linguistic madness could have ended by either:
a.) clearly defining a convertible as a sedan or coupe with a removable roof, or
b.) clearly explaining the principle by which the Jeep might also be included.

Supposing that my perspective on gay marriage is wrong, and that it does warrant a redefinition, I have not read a principled reason to suggest that said redefinition should stop at b, or marrying only same-sex couples. If you have, please tell me, and I will immediately retract this paragraph. If I’m right though, and the pro-gay marriage community can’t decide where marriage as a definition ought to stop, this is an important point; if we can’t decide where marriage starts and stops, it is instantly meaningless.

I might be told that this isn’t so much an issue of gay marriage as much as an issue of civil rights. If, in fact, gay marriage were a civil rights issue, and only a civil rights issue, all legal protections (health care, estate, etc.) for partners’ rights would have been codified years ago under the aforementioned democratic pressure. (Borderline moot point in many states, as most already codify said protections). That has not happened nationwide. My thinking is that either:
a.) I’m wrong that the pressure would have led to codification, or more likely
b.) Lawmakers can’t separate gay marriage from partners’ rights, or
c.) The pro-gay marriage community seeks not marriage, but instead seeks to force public acceptance of alternative lifestyles.

In any event, Massachusetts won’t have a legit revisiting of this issue for a long while. Whatever your opinion on the issue happens to be, respect for the democratic process is integral.