Staff editorial missed the topic of gay rights
Bourgeois, Bob
Issue date: 3/9/06 Section: Letters
After reading your March 2 editorial on the issue of voters settling the issue of gay marriage, I could not help but feel like you missed some fundamental points; specifically, that of civil rights. I would like to remain as unoffending as possible, but the editorial was incredibly narrow-minded. You mention how different groups have debated the topic without resolve, and further mention how voting on this is problematic in that it disrupts the usual
voter turnout.
However, you neglect to even recognize the real problem: the effects on the minority population in question. We are voting to deny a specific portion of the population - defined by its identity - a right to a secular, legally defined institution. Our laws allow for the marriage of a mixed-sex couple who simply cohabitate for a certain period of time, yet we are voting to refuse to two individuals the rights and benefits of a state recognized relationship because they are of the same sex.
I see this as no different from the problems of the civil rights movement; had those issues been settled by public opinion, we would be living in a radically different world. Black people couldn't vote because they were black and now gay people can't
get married because they are gay.
You argue that a referendum will resolve this issue and inspire greater civic involvement. It might, but I find such a move irresponsible. A referendum only shifts the burden of debate and decision-making away from where it should be: with civic leaders and a representative government whose duty it is to see that everyone's civil liberties are guaranteed.
Bob Bourgeois
Senior
voter turnout.
However, you neglect to even recognize the real problem: the effects on the minority population in question. We are voting to deny a specific portion of the population - defined by its identity - a right to a secular, legally defined institution. Our laws allow for the marriage of a mixed-sex couple who simply cohabitate for a certain period of time, yet we are voting to refuse to two individuals the rights and benefits of a state recognized relationship because they are of the same sex.
I see this as no different from the problems of the civil rights movement; had those issues been settled by public opinion, we would be living in a radically different world. Black people couldn't vote because they were black and now gay people can't
get married because they are gay.
You argue that a referendum will resolve this issue and inspire greater civic involvement. It might, but I find such a move irresponsible. A referendum only shifts the burden of debate and decision-making away from where it should be: with civic leaders and a representative government whose duty it is to see that everyone's civil liberties are guaranteed.
Bob Bourgeois
Senior