By now everyone knows the big news from Tuesday's election: President Bush will continue to be our president for the next four years. What we must not overlook in the process of analyzing the minutiae of the election is the 11 anti-gay marriage amendments that passed by state referenda across the country.
These referenda raise serious concerns about America's commitment to the protection of minority groups and raise the specter of a tyrannous majority ruling this great nation.
From Georgia to Kentucky to Ohio to Oregon, measures amending state constitutions to exclude gays from marriage were approved by voters. The measure that won by the largest margin was Mississippi's, which passed with 86 percent of the vote, but even that with the smallest margin passed comfortably, with Oregon's measure getting 57
percent.
Many citizens would ask why they should be troubled by this, as most believe that marriage is indeed an institution that is reserved to people of the opposite sex. Most people get married within a religious institution, and most religions do not allow homosexual unions. Why should any heterosexual be concerned?
There are several reasons why amending state constitutions to specifically exclude homosexuals from marriage is a bad idea. We simply cannot amend constitutions to exclude groups who are too small in number to muster the electoral strength to win at the polls. Amendments that specifically deny rights to certain groups are not healthy for democracy and are not keeping with the true spirit of American tolerance and inclusion.
Many argue that religious interpretations of marriage make it impossible for the vast majority of Americans to accept gay marriage as reality. What they fail to take into account, however, is that it is not the state's job to enforce specific religious norms. Without these constitutional amendments religions would still be free to do as they please; with them, however, religions and pastors that allowed gay marriage are now intruded upon by the state.
This is a very real issue for the LGBT community and their families and friends. Imagine not being able to bring your child to the hospital because your partner, and not yourself, was the legal guardian of the child. Just such a thing happened to Massachusetts state Senator Jarrett Barrios, who told on the Senate floor of standing and arguing with nurses while his son screamed in agony.
The portrait painted by Senator Barrios is horrifying, but it is unfortunately one of a plethora of problems all too common for homosexuals in long term relationships. Our American ideal should not be the systematic exclusion of certain groups from the opportunities and rights afforded to all others in our society. The tyranny of the majority might be compatible with the democratic process, but we must never forget that it is, first and foremost, tyranny.
