If gay marriage is to be decided by a referendum, then only those who have a chance of being affected by the decision should be able to vote. Namely, the gay people.
We don’t invite, say, Peruvians to vote on who our president should be, do we?
Who Should Vote on Gay Marriage?
Clarissa's Blog 
And bisexuals too!
Cue ten million comments on this post detailing all the ways people’s lives would be ruined by seeing me and Jaime walking down the street holding hands and wearing wedding bands on our fingers, so they absolutely should get to vote on it.
LikeLike
Nobody should vote on gay marriage, because civil rights should not be decided by a referendum. The Church in Argentina tried to pull that trick before same-sex marriage was legalized, but it went nowhere.
LikeLike
The former Governor of Hawaii did that once on civil unions, vetoing a bill that would legalize them, because she claimed this issue was “too important” and should be voted on by the people of Hawaii. Which was just a chicken way of her getting out of voting “yes” and losing all her Republican cred. The next Governor just signed it into law when it was introduced.
I wish I lived in a world where my civil rights didn’t get voted on, either on a referendum or in a public poll. I still remember CNN (one of the big networks anyways) having a poll on their website which essentially asked: “Uganda’s ‘Kill the Gays’ Bill, good idea or bad idea?” It was the most awful lapse in taste I’d ever seen in a public poll.
LikeLike
In Argentina, the law passed through Congress after a strong push by the President. The most curious thing was that, in my opinion (and a lot of Argentineans would disagree with me on this one), she couldn’t care less about gay rights. She got into a public fight with the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, and just decided that such a law would be the best way to piss him off. The President will easily be re-elected in October, and the law is a non- issue. Politics in a country where something like this can happen is always fascinating.
LikeLike
I agree completely that this is not a referendum issue. I’m hearing that there are plans to conduct such a referendum in NC, though. So of there is to be one, then I think it’s only fair that people who will be affected by the decision get to decide.
LikeLike
So they’re going to try the same sneaky, cruel, distorting tactics that they used in California to put on the ballot and pass Proposition 8? Lovely.
LikeLike
Oh they did it in NC alright. And in a rather underhanded manner. Apparently this past Friday near the end of the day the Republicans in the NC decided to hold a session this past Monday on the revised language on a bill. The bill was originally about term limits in the NC Congress but all of that language was gutted out and replaced with this marriage amendment.
It was a sneak attack that unfortunately worked and the bill has pass the NC House. I have a post up on it called “76 Cowards and a hatred of gays” if you want to look it up. Also check out Pam’s Houseblend who has been all over this issue.
Its looking like NC could be the next major gay marriage rights battleground next year.
LikeLike
I read your post, good grief.
American politicians need to stop giving me answers to the question each time someone asks me why I left the states.
LikeLike
“We don’t invite, say, Peruvians to vote on who our president should be, do we?”
But then again, neither afghanis nor iraqis were invited to vote for a president in 2000 and they clearly were affected.
LikeLike
1) You’re right, this ought not be a referendum issue (that’s why we elect representatives, to make these decisions. The ‘referendum’ comes every 4 years or so)
2) The decision does affect everyone, not just the gay community. There is an economic price to pay for endorsing and for denying the extension of marriage.
LikeLike
How would it affect you or me economically exactly??
LikeLike
There would be an impact on the tax burden (deductions for dependent spouses, for example), which ultimately leaves less money in the coffers. Therefore, higher tax rates or lower services for everyone.
Insurance benefits would be extended to same sex couples – which means higher total payouts, and thus higher rates or lower services for everyone.
Statistics related to auto insurance would change – same sex couples would now be included in the married category, which would drive down the rates for married people and increase them for singles. (Married people are a lower insurance risk for auto insurers than singles).
The hidden cost of stress (related to being ‘in the closet’ or from not having the same protections as hetero couples) would be reduced, thus reducing the overall health care burden.
And on and on. . . society does not exist in a vacuum. What happens in one area of society cannot be sectioned off and isolated from the rest of society.
LikeLike
Oh I see yes everybody remembers the dire consequences to insurance rates and tax burdens when they started letting black people marry whites.
LikeLike
If anybody cared about the tax burdens and tax rates for married couples as a burden on the “coffers”, hetero people would be discouraged from getting married and not vice versa. So the argument is specious and dishonest.
LikeLike
So this must mean that your right to get married is costing gay people a whole lot, isn’t it? Is it OK for them to pay for your free ride but not OK for you to pay for theirs?
LikeLike
When did I say I opposed gay marriage? Please don’t put words in my mouth.
My initial point was that it ought not be a referendum issue, and two, if we’re to go down the path of direct democracy, then you cannot be selective in who gets to participate.
LikeLike
So Peruvians should decide who gets to be our president? 🙂
Also, it would be great to know who made the decision that you getting married is not too huge a burden on our coffers?
LikeLike
There are those that support the idea of a one-world government, precisely because the actions/policies of one nation/region impact the world so profoundly.
And please, try to read and understand what is being said – there are costs & benefits to marriage. They are neither good nor bad – they simply exist as fact.
LikeLike
I see in a variety of topics that you are preoccupied with what people are costing you but kind of indifferent to what you are costing to people.
LikeLike
I’m an accountant – my life is about cost analysis. Should I apologize for trying to bring dispassionate analysis to a debate?
LikeLike
Patrick, nobody except you thinks about that. At least, based on my years on US blogs, it’s the first time I hear of any economic considerations.
LikeLike
They are not considerations, el. These are excuses.
LikeLike
The only reasonable reason to oppose same sex marriage is on economic grounds – and they pale in comparison to the civil rights of the citizens. Furthermore, the economic considerations would likely balance out, as there are benefits as well as costs, and what you end up with is a redistribution effect.
The question posed was who ought to vote on in a referendum. My point is that you can’t exclude a class from voting, based on some perception that it ‘doesn’t affect them’.
LikeLike
Yes, you can if that class of people isn’t allowing anybody to vote on the same rights for them. A person who didn’t have anybody vote on their marriage can hardly expect to be asked to participate in voting about the marriages of others.
LikeLike
Now you’re being irrational and unreasonable.
What legislation should I get to participate in? How will you restrict my rights within a civil society? You sound like a dictator in training.
LikeLike
I think it’s a question of rights in a democracy. F.e. if getting married is a right, then you can’t vote on it. A good principle is “if it doesn’t hurt you…” (and moral hurt from others’ marriages / abortions/ atheism must not count.)
LikeLike
So, as long as you can frame your argument as a ‘moral’ argument, then you can exclude just about anyone you want from a referendum. Yeah Democracy!
LikeLike
I meant that democracy must protect minorities from (parts of) majority, from their desire to force their faith, moral values, whatever on others. Otherwise, Iran can be called a democracy too, while stoning women and much more.
LikeLike
I’m all for gay marriage, but a referendum by definition is addressed to the entire electorate.
LikeLike
Electorate of what? Nobody is getting elected.
Californians are free to vote on issues pertaining to California. My department votes on issues concerning the department. We don’t invite the entire university to vote on what happens at our department, do we? Why should it be any different for other groups of people?
LikeLike
Well, the electorate, all the people whom are able to vote in that area. If the entire electorate weren’t allowed to vote on the issue there would be some form of moral outcry. And I agree, to an extent; if we want to live in a democracy we have to take the good and the bad. The second we say “only homosexual and bisexual people are allowed to vote on the issue of gay marriage”, we’ll have groups and lobbyists making arguments among the same lines.
LikeLike