Let the People Vote, A Vote on Marriage? (Revised)

There is one issue I'd like to comment on, one that has a special place in the hearts and minds of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The new mantra of the neo-conservative minority: "Let the people vote."

A noble idea. Let us let all the people vote. Why not? It's what the people want isn't it? Right? It's democracy after all? Is it not?

Of course, in truth, by "the people" they (the neo-conservative think-tank) mean those who have their beliefs should vote. Not me. I might as well stay home. They don't want my vote on marriage. But they will get it, you be sure of that. I will gladly nullify one of their votes with mine.

When it comes right down to it, we should not vote. None of us. This vote should not take place. Not now. Not ever. Why? Because it is a slippery slope when we play god with the rights of man.

Let's take a practical approach....

If we vote and this amendment (limiting marriage to one man and one woman) is passed who benefits? Do supporters of the amendment benefit? They've succeeded in restricting the rights of a small sect of society. Maybe they will attain a certain smugness in victory. Perhaps they feel they've attained a moral triumph. But how does this help them, even if what they say is true and some version of a god finds fault with the actions of this small sect of society? It simply doesn't help them in any tangible manner whatsoever.

What about those against the amendment, against limiting the right of marriage to one man and one woman? How does it passing affect them? Well for the most part it won't directly affect them. But for a small group, those the amendment is actually aimed at, will be affected in one of the most unfair and horrible ways possible. These people, adult men and women, will not be allowed to marry who they want in the eyes of our government, not the neo-cons' eyes mind you; they still will not be married in their eyes, but by law they will not be allowed to marry the person that they love. Does this make much sense to you? Does this sound like something that would happen in a country and a state that touts individual freedom? This seems like a pretty big void in the idea of "liberty and justice for all" to me. It seems to me that the actual message of this country should be "Hey if you don't believe what I believe then you're not welcome here". The Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, the Mexicans. It has historical precedence. The freedoms promised in the Constitution are all well and good, just until they come into conflict with our personally accepted values.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL." The very first line of the Declaration of Independence. It is the bedrock on which we have built a successful and cohesive society. To begin to scratch away at the words of our forefathers would be the ultimate injustice to the scarifies that they have incurred maintaining the preeminence of this document.

But what if the amendment is rejected.... What happens then?

Well, if the amendment is defeated, everyone, those who voted against it and for it, and their children, and their children's children (etc.) will be able to partake in a right (to marry whomever they love regardless of their gender) that if the amendment had passed would have been taken from them in this country of "equality," "justice," and "freedom". For those it directly affects, those who have found true love in the soul of a member of the same sex, they will be able to marry who they want in the eyes of the law and our great state. In short they will have the freedom to pursue who they love without fear of lawful rejection and to be recognized for it in the eyes of the government, the law, and on paper.

For those who voted against it, they will feel betrayed no doubt by democracy. Their rights, they believe, would have been impeded on. But let's look at it realistically... They gained a right that they wouldn't ordinarily have. They don't actually lose any rights whatsoever. Might I add that the sole reason for democracy is for the protection of rights. No where in the state constitution does it mention the restriction of rights as a goal of democracy. Actually if you look at this case, these people have maintained a right in spite of wanting to give it up. People that want to give up rights? Voluntarily? What sort of person wants to give up their rights? Overall the question must be posed, are they harmed? Well they didn't get their way, that's for certain. But, no one is saying that they cannot voice their opinion. It is the pride of this state and this nation that everyone is free to express their opinions. True, the views of a minority are viewed as preferable over their own. But, what we must realize is that the sole duty of democracy and government is to protect the rights of man. Therefore there will come a time when it must protect the majority from itself for the sake of the institution.

We have reached such a point. Man is trying to break the system that was set in place to guarantee the protection of their rights. This is why we shouldn't be allowed to vote. We cannot risk the secure foundation of our civilization to further a belief because it will undermine the institution itself. Once we begin to undermine the institution, the idea of "equality" will no longer mean equal, the idea of "justice" will no longer be just, and the idea of "freedom" will be forever scarred by the violently destructive ideals of the neo-conservative minority.