Little in this world is as true as the old adage, "History is bound to repeat itself." This was evidenced in the severe incidence of déjà vu that was Maine's referendum vote last week to repeal a law allowing gay marriage.
Question 1 on the Maine ballot sought to overturn a law passed in May legalizing gay marriage, and it passed with 53 percent of the vote. Nearly a year ago to the day, California's Proposition 8 amended the state's constitution to prohibit gay marriage, overriding the California Supreme Court's ruling in May 2008 extending equal marriage rights to gays. But this year's vote arguably came as more of a shock to the gay and lesbian community, many members of which had expected Maine's independent, live-and-let-live mentality to manifest itself in support for the legislation. If that had been the case, it would have been the first state in the nation to have upheld the legalization of gay marriage through a popular vote. Instead, Maine joins the ranks of the 30 other states that have illegalized gay marriage through referenda. This trend is indicative of a greater issue — that of putting the civil rights of minorities at the will of the voting majority.
Historically, the average American has not had an easy time seeing eye-to-eye with disenfranchised minorities. The American electorate is often slow to answer the call for change, even when a progressive movement's time has come. For example, in May 1961 the Gallup Poll asked Americans whether ‘sit-ins' at lunch counters, ‘freedom buses,' and other demonstrations by Negroes" would help or hurt blacks' chances at integration. By a two-to-one margin (57-28 percent), Americans predicted that these activities, which we now know to have been the backbone of the Civil Rights Movement, would hurt — essentially, that they were a bad idea.
For modern-day evidence of America's conservative spirit, one need look no further than the health care debate. In last month's ABC News/Washington Post poll, 48 percent of Americans said they opposed "the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by Congress and the Obama administration," with just 45 percent pledging support.
Advertisements advocating for a "yes" vote on Question 1 played upon the conservative, change-averse tendencies that have such a strong footing in this country, falsely alleging that keeping gay marriage would somehow bring gay issues into public elementary-school curricula. The advertisements shifted the focus from civil rights and personal choice to a perceived threat to young children. Instead of drawing upon logic and trustworthy information, the advertisements appealed to a primal and basic sense of fear and insecurity — not the best basis upon which to make decisions.
It is exactly because of this common human susceptibility to fear and misinformation that the United States is not a direct democracy (a Socratic mob, after all, is still a mob). When we elect representatives to our local and national government, we vest in them the responsibility not only to represent the interests of the people, but also to make decisions — however unpopular they may be — that are necessary for maintaining justice and relative equality for all citizens. Estimates place the size of the United States' gay and lesbian population somewhere between 1 and 3 percent — a tiny minority. In the case of a referendum, gaining marriage equality depends on that minority and its supporters convincing a vast majority to support a progressive piece of legislation that principally focuses on the one, tiny group. The odds of that happening, especially in more conservative regions of the country, are not good. It makes some sense that all the states that have legalized gay marriage have done so through judicial or legislative avenues other than the referendum.
So while it may be easy to admonish those who voted for Question 1, Prop 8 and the 29 other referenda that have effectively cut down the civil rights of gays and lesbians in their respective states, the Daily would suggest that the issue extends beyond the individuals — or even the will — of the majority, and comes down to a simple question: Should the rights and freedoms of the few be dictated by the fears, ignorance and insecurity of the many? Our answer is no.
