North Carolina will vote on marriage

http://www.nomblog.com/13673

"This is a big win for marriage and for democracy!" says Brian Brown. "The big lie in politics is that the marriage fight is over. This vote proves once again the pundits are wrong: the people want the right to decide the future of marriage. NOM reached out to more than 100,000 North Carolinians in the last few days, making sure they told their representatives they want the right to vote for marriage. Congratulations to each and every North Carolinian voter for this big win, and thanks in particular to the Family Research Council, North Carolina Family Policy Council and the North Carolina Values Coalition for all their hard work in making this vote happen.”


The italicized portion is what is hilarious, since it was the exact same method of there being marriage equality in New York. If the state legislature passing something is evidence of the will of the people in North Carolina, shouldn't it be the will of the people on New York, too? Not according to Brian Brown, since NOM is still campaigning to get people to vote on the issue at some point in New York.


There is a larger issue at work here; that issue is whether or not people should vote on matters of civil rights. Ending segregation in the 50's would have been an issue of "redefining what's right." Even after Brown v. Board of Education (which, for those of you keeping score at home, ruled that "In the field of public education, separate but equal has no place." Extending that logic, civil unions looked at as equal to marriage would also be ruled "unconstitutional" by the 14th Amendment), people still were pro-segregation. And if marriage is not a civil right, then it must therefore be a privilege that the government can regulate and license. If this is the case, then so-called "defenders of marriage" really should have no complaint when the judicial branch of government decides to intervene. 


By the way, here's a quote from the afore-referenced George Wallace. "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever"  


The rhetoric is disturbingly similar to the rhetoric used by NOM and its supporters, using words like tyranny to describe the opposition (ironic, given that the opposition to George Wallace likely [and rightfully so] called Wallace bigoted). The use of "tyranny" also makes it out like people like George Wallace or groups like NOM are the victim in the matter of equal rights. To put this in perspective, imagine the following scenario:


John wants to build a pool in his backyard. In preparation, he builds a fence since he wants an in-ground pool. Bob, his neighbor, is religiously opposed to pools. John meanwhile goes through the proper legal channels to allow a pool to be placed in his backyard. He buys the extra insurance, he finds a really nice pool liner, and talks with a contractor to help build the pool. Bob, fearing a life where he has to look at a fence that hides a pool, decides to go to the mayor of the city and complain, saying the pool violates his right to religion as well as his democratic-right to vote. Bob, in desperation, holds a campaign where he claims that his rights as a citizen are being violated because he is being "denied" the "right" to tell someone else what to do on their own property, that, in the grand scheme of things, has no impact on Bob whatsoever. Bob also argues that it is bad for the neighborhood and that it will hurt property value, or be a danger to children who could fall in and drown. Because Bob has lots of money coming in from his anonymous anti-Pool donors, gets to hold a vote on the matter that is city-wide: Does John get to have a pool even though it morally offends Bob?


Can't we all see how ridiculous that is? Seriously, if this were to happen in real life, we'd all laugh, right? We'd all tell Bob to take a long walk off a short pier? Why should Bob's opposition to fences be ANY different than NOM's opposition to gay marriage? 


There is also the whole messiah-complex, too, of representing "great" people and their "great" political positions that happen to deny equal rights. Can anyone else see Brian Brown sweating in his tax-exempt suit delivering a fiery sermon in front of small throng of supporters shouting "Man and woman today, man and woman tomorrow, man and woman forever"?