Soon, a bill will come to the floor of the Minnesota State Legislature that, if passed, will place before our good-natured and common sense citizenry a question as to the state’s definition of marriage. The question before us now is not whether marriage is or ought to be defined as a sacred union between one man and one woman, or even what our own personal feelings are on the matter. Certainly, many — if not most — in our community and state share a religious or social definition of traditional marriage. But at stake are not our own personal feelings about marriage or what the majority opinion of marriage might be. Rather, what is at stake is the state’s official opinion on which citizens may or may not partake in the civil and social institution of marriage and, specifically, whether that majority opinion should provide the final say on the matter.
Being a straight man, it is hard for me to think of the ever-present opportunity I have to propose marriage to a woman as any sort of right. As a tradition of our and nearly every other society, the act of being married is rarely if ever perceived or described as a right. But when I consider how I would feel in the practically unimaginable situation wherein my opportunity to marry were taken away by the government, I hardly believe my first sentence of protest would be “No, this is my privilege.” Surely, just as if the government were to come for my guns, I would assert that this is my right.
History has taught us that the majority opinion is not always the best means to protect minority rights. In 1954, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that separate could ever mean equal. The good-natured folks in Topeka, Kan., were not asked to give a show of hands in this matter. When, a decade later, a culture of bigotry and inequality persisted, an act of Congress further asserted equal rights. Again, the common sense voters of Birmingham, Alabama were not consulted — every Southern Democratic Senator voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In 1967, 16 states had laws on the books banning marriage between heterosexual couples of different races until these laws were overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court decision. This decision came despite a Gallup poll that found that 72 percent of Americans opposed interracial marriage and nearly half felt interracial marriage was an offense that should be punishable by a fine or jail time.
The 1967 decision that overturned miscegenation laws asserted that a citizen’s right to marry did not cease to exist because he or she fell in love with a member of another race. Regardless of one’s view as to the extent to which personal choice informs sexual orientation, to put homosexual participation in marriage rights to a vote would be to subject all minority rights to majority approval. If a citizen’s rights are conditional upon exercising those rights in accordance with the majority opinion, then no right that is exercised by a minority of citizens lies beyond the reach of the majority to take away by a vote. According to a recent poll conducted by the Washington Post, 41.7 percent of Minnesotans own at least one gun. Gun ownership is just as much a lifestyle choice as it is a right, and it is the choice of a minority of Minnesotans to exercise their right to own a gun. However unlikely or difficult to imagine the scenario might be, left to a simple majority vote of non-gun owners versus gun owners, even gun rights could be taken away.
Mob rule does not cease to be mob rule simply because one agrees with the opinion of the mob. As good-natured and common sensed as we Minnesota voters may be, minority rights are not a matter of public opinion. We entrust the obligation of stating and safeguarding minority rights to the representatives and judges we elect. I pray our elected officials do not shrink from their duty out of electoral cowardice or a desire for political gain.
TAYLOR STEVENSON was a DFL candidate for the Senate District 12 seat in 2010 and is a member of the Crow Wing County Human Rights Commission. His column was written to reflect his personal opinion and not that of the commission.
Comments (77)
Add commentGood-natured and Common Sensed
SPOT ON - Great editorial.
A Minnesota example of a decision for the greater good was the designation of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Back then, the people living around that area felt the designation would hurt their businesses and they were against the designation. Fortunately, a broader perspective prevailed and see what a national/international treasure the BWCA has become.
Great editorial. Not that
Great editorial. Not that age should be an issue but it's unusual for someone so young to be able understand the big picture and why we can't always let the majority rule.
Sometimes we just have to do what's right like abolishing slavery, letting women vote, allowing interracial marriages, and even letting people who are born gay form legally binding committed relationships.
do gays have to wait for equality?
Statistics show that young people (even conservatives) do not feel that gay people should be denied legal relationships so they can share their lives and benefits like straight people do.
Herc, just classic - calling gays 'funny' - I can tell you are old.
Like desegregation - we could have waited until everyone came around and agreed - but it was legislated and forced.
Let's not legislate something that will show that MN is not a welcoming place for everyone. Is that what we want?
This young man is the face of the future. And a very interesting comparison - gun ownership is going down nation wide. How many gun owners would appreciate legislation making guns illegal by the majority who do not have or like guns? Bingo!
jg, did you even read the
jg, did you even read the editorial?
It says "opportunity" not "right".
I thought you guys wanted to keep government out of our private lives? I guess that only applies to your life.
Perspective
Huge issues confront Minnesota and the nation, and our new Republican leaders focus on gay bashing. Stick to your guns, Taylor.
you lost
there is a reason you lost BIG! you are out of touch with a whole bunch of people.
it's this area
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?id=15373
If Taylor had run in another district, he would be in office.
Carly Melin, young, single, smart.........new 5B representative.
Taylor, for a first run, did extremely well.
But here, in this area, we keep electing Bob Olson-types. Who are truly out of touch with people.
In this area the focus is guns, gays and abortion. Not good jobs, apparently.
That's why our bright young people leave for other areas resulting in the brain drain to this area.
jg, You do know that 1 gun
jg,
You do know that 1 gun owner who buys multiple guns is still 1 gun owner. You do know that don't you?
With that depth of thinking I'm not surprised at your support for some issue.
the right exists, ron-john...
...under the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment. It's just not currently being enforced, and in some cases the Equal Protection clause is preempted by state law, which is why judges are ruling against laws defining marriage as between a man and woman. I'm sure you've read the Constitution, but, for reference, you'll be looking to Section 1. There is no majority (however fleeting that majority is showing to be) approval required for rights that already exist in the Constitution, which was Mr. Stevenson's point in the paragraphs about previous SCOTUS decisions.
Herc,
A lot of us who support the right of gay men and women to marry aren't "funny," and poll numbers reflect that, with 2011 surveys nearly in a dead heat and a VERY CLEAR trend showing the public edging toward supporting equal marriage. I know you meant to undercut Mr. Stevenson's point by derisively referring to his young age, but you did get at something. According to those polls, people who aren't old, like you, aren't stuck on the notion that discriminating against our neighbors is something we care to engage in, when there are real and present threats to our state, nation, and body politic...and, after all, when you look at Taylor, at 22, and you, probably in your mid-sixties, who has the real vested interest in long term future of our society?
You might think you and you're generation have an accumulated wisdom that allows you to dismiss the opinions of the youth, but the youth might see that the country your generation has wrought isn't the type of place we want to spend our next 60 years in. Maybe we should all agree that one's age shouldn't be the determining factor on the validity of one's opinions.
Well stated, Taylor
Well stated, Taylor Stevenson.
Fishhead
I know someone very well who does gun permits for a local law enforcement agency. You can rest assured that gun ownership is way up.
impressed
gun ownership is in the constitution! how'd that "mob" thing work in wisconsion? oh' that was union goons who hate right to work laws-forced gunion membership is a must to work and buy a politicon! i met 1 idiot who said he voted for obamanation wearing a obama t-shirt the day after the election. i asked why a gun now-quote,obama will do all he can to outlaw them! we have enough laws and way tooo many corupt politicons!
In case our bible-beater friends missed it,
our country is based on adherence to the constitution... not adherence to the bible or some self-righteous authoritarians' interpretation of it.
The young fella said...
I guess an Ivy League education trumps the opinion of the rest of the ignorant rabble out here. And just to prove it, I'll use words like "miscegenation." But I digress.
Evidently, in his view, the state's official position differs from that of the majority opinion. Who then decides how that official state position is to be decided? He did not elaborate on that but I guess the Supreme court should be the final determiner of human rights (per his 1954 example). But what happens when the court decides against his own personal opinion? What will he say then? If it is the case that the Supreme Court should decide all human rights issues, the legislative branch is dead weight. So....why then did he run for Congress?
If congress does have a role to play, then the majority in Congress = the state's official position.
And BTW, just because only 41% of Minnesotans own guns, that doesn't mean a majority don't believe that we should have that right. Many people don't have guns simply because they feel safe where they are.
tripwire
If you have a more pc term, I'll be happy to use it.
Cheyenne
You, and others, demand consistency in applying human rights of everyone else, but you don't have to be consistent is your use of labels(?). How does that work?
As I said before tripwire,
give me a more pc term and I'll use it. In the meantime, how about addressing the issue that the nation is based on adherence to the constitution, not the bible or some self-righteous authoritarians' interpretation of it.
Wait...
Did I forget "Bible thumpers" and Bible bangers?"
dalton: re: gun ownership
It is going down and has been for 10 years. Except among those who are listening to scary news casts.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf
herc1944: If you were born in 1944, then I am older than you and must say, you do have the same attitudes as some of my classmates. Thankfully, I got away from that Red State.
Small government Republicans.
Small enough to fit in your bedroom and decide if what consenting adults are doing is okay.
I would like to see just one supporter of this waste of taxpayer money explain how gays getting married hurts straight marriage.
Just one. Anyone?
Not if you get your way they
Not if you get your way they won't. I have no doubt that you would make same sex marriage a crime and put them in jail.
Evergreen
As I mentioned, gun ownership is not an indicator of a person's beliefs about whether on should be able to own a gun. A feeling of personal safety, loss of interest in hunting (ask the DNR, they're trying to ENCOURAGE gun ownership), etc. are probably better indicators.
Also, I read your link. For the life of me, I couldn't find anything in there about scarry news casts.
Re: Small Government Republicans
Fishhead:
Why would same-sex marriage have to harm straight marriage in order for it to be illegal? The same could be said about polygamy and consenting incestuous marriages: nobody is being hurt here. Do you propose that these should be legally permitted?
To all parties:
As a Christian, it is my duty to be elitist when it comes to ideas and principles, but egalitarian when it comes to people. That is, I hold homophobia and use of slurs and epithets to be sins, but in the same instant I cannot condone homosexual behavior or marriage. Just as Christ spent time with prostitutes and tax-collectors, and was friends with those who denied him and betrayed him, I should show genuine Christian love even to those who are not always loyal to me, my beliefs, or my lifestyle. Nonetheless, Christ and his followers undeniably condemned sinful acts, and I should do the same.
The Manhattan Declaration is a resolution written by Christians of all denominations in 2009 regarding life, marriage, and religious liberty. I encourage readers to read, and if so disposed, sign the Declaration here. Its strongest point to this topic reads as follows: "The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life."
At the same time, Mr. Stevenson makes a point when he says the right of the minority needs to be respected and protected - adherence to this principle is what has made our country great over the centuries, and has advanced civil rights for women and minorities in the last hundred years. All of us but the racists and bigots can agree that these progressive agendas have benefited our country. Furthermore, neither his education nor his youth should be disparaged in this debate - one only weakens the strength of one's own argument by resorting to ad hominem attacks. Slinging insults is immature and only distracts from rebutting the principle of his argument.
In short, it is not because the majority does not affirm gay marriage as equivalent to marriage between one man and one woman that it should be outlawed - it is because this view of marriage is incorrect and detrimental to the social fabric of our great nation.
Thanks Taylor. As one of
Thanks Taylor. As one of those "funny people" (classy, Herc. It's not humor, it's ostracizing a group even further.) I'm glad to see our straight allies standing up for us. Too bad you weren't elected. Here's to hope for a better future.
-An old classmate.
Dalton
You try. It could be a learning experience for you! LOL!
if they want to marry, let them marry
what difference is it to any one of us if 2 gay people marry?
for this i do agree with dems
however, raising a baby and young children in a unisex relationship is a different story. I am not so sure that is right but I am not a mind doctor so I really cant say. I guess we will find out if it is after about 10-20 years when these young people are adults that have been raised in a unisex relationship.
Bigots
@tripwire, "bible thumpers" is the most accurate term for you that is allowed to be printed in the press. I can think of quite a few other words I would use to describe you (and Herc) but I don't think you'd like them any better. As we've been saying for decades now, "We're here, we're queer; get used to it".
"We're here, we're queer; get
"We're here, we're queer; get used to it".
Git 'em kitty.
I started to write a comment regarding Hercs post, and decided it wasn't worthy of a response. You should be ashamed of what you posted, "Gunny".
i disagree with
i disagree with dems.
Children raised by gay couples are adults now. There's no need to wait 20 more years.
Many have married and are raising children of their own. I've never seen any statistics that show they are negatively impacted or "infected" as some would have you believe but I'll admit that I haven't bothered to look because it's a non-issue with me and with most other straight people.
If the GOP continues to push fringe issues on the public they'll find themselves running for election and not re-election before you know it. I believe that would be a GOOD THING! considering the nonsense they waste time on instead of the budget. Remember the budget?
the people protesting the most about gays
should look in the mirror closely, and figure out why they are so insecure with their own sexuality that someone elses would upset them
over the years I have met quite a few homophobic people and in nearly every case......I wondered if they had gay tendencies (I think thou does protest too much.)
I am straight, I have gay friends, lots of them - fun, well balanced, educated, accepting people, some attend my church where the God we worship loves everyone. EVERYONE.