A Win and A Loss for Equality

Voters in Kalamazoo yesterday upheld the city's civil rights ordinance, which guarantees equal rights in employment and housing to all, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people.

On the same day, voters in Maine overturned a state law legalizing gay marriage in the state. 

The Maine law had not gone into effect, as opponents got an injunction to delay its implementation right after it was passed.  Then they circulated petitions to get the repeal on the state ballot. I was very disappointed to see the law overturned, but encouraged that the vote was somewhat close - 53% to 47%.

In contrast, the Kalamazoo ordinance was already in effect.  People could see how it affected them, and for many people, it didn't.  And they could also see how it affected friends, family members and co-workers who gained civil rights when the ordinance was passed.  The Kalamazoo vote in favor of the ordinance was nearly 62%, with only 38% opposed.

And that gives me great hope that as people realize that granting civil rights to everyone does not harm their own life or somehow make their own marriage less meaningful, that we will see more votes like Kalamazoo. 

There will probably always be people who insist on imposing their religious beliefs on others, like the two groups who got these two issues on their ballots.  But I hope their support continues to shrink until support for civil rights is the norm among voters.

Comments

[Andrew Smith]

What happened in Maine appears to be the trend: "civil rights" laws are passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and then overturned by the people at the next election opportunity. Personally, I don't understand the argument against same sex marriage either, but I also understand that the primary reason the state is even involved in marriage is to encourage the growth of the tax base, thus netting additional funds for the state. Marriage is a personal and religious contract which governments have used and abused throughout history. In a modern society, there's no reason the state should be involved in marriage at all, but because Americans have forgotten what it is to be free, they rely on the endorsement of the state to quantify their rights under the law.

If Americans wanted real civil rights and equality, they would reject the ludicrous notion that the state needs to grant a license to marry and end discriminatory practices which tax married couples at different rates and provide benefits or penalties based on marital status. Licenses to drive, to marry, to own guns, to own animals, to practice one's career... soon there will be a license to give birth in order to prevent undesirable people from breeding. This is a truly sickening situation.

The Kalamazoo ordinance is equally sickening, as to guarantee equal rights in employment and housing, the rights of property and business owners are usurped!

/end rant

[CaravaggiosZen]

I think it comes down to the will of the people, Aubrey.

When the Maine legislature took it upon themselves to enact "gay" marriage, there were people who felt unheard; enough to put it on the ballot. That alone says the legislature acted without consulting their constituents.

And now given the result of the ballot vote, the people have had their say in the matter.

There is a shift in society towards accepting "gay" marriage, but it has been gradual. Not fast enough for those who fall into the category, but again, society on the whole decides--not a select few.

I'm ok with marriage between any two adults, regardless of category. Soon enough there will not be the "gay" prefix, just "marriage." But until then the issue cannot be forced upon the people, because they will rebel.

[yournamehere]

This is what happens when you let Civil Rights legislation be decided by emotion. Just as Loving v. Virginia was finally determined by SCOTUS, ending all anti-miscegenation laws, eventually a case striking down discrimination in same sex marriages will make it to SCOTUS and that will be the only way to end this silliness. (Technically, Loving v Virginia should cover same sex marriages, but you can't tell the homophobes that)

Andrew, how does the Kalamazoo ordinance usurp property and business owners rights? Do you suggest we allow said individuals to also deny guaranteed equal rights to others based on minority status, disability status, family status, and those who receive money from government sources? Because that's all the Kalamazoo ordinance does, is expand existing law. Were it not for these housing and employment laws, most rental housing and businesses would be pure, healthy WASPS with no children.

[Jon M.]

There is no country on earth whose government is not involved in marriage. In most countries religious ministers can perform only the religious ceremony, but cannot validate the marriage as legal. For the binding legal portion, most countries also require a civil ceremony usually done at a special government registry office by an appropriate government official. Usually the couple goes to the government office first for the binding civil ceremony, and only then, if they wish a religious ceremony also, do they go to church.

[Troy]

Marriage of any kind is not a federal issue, or maybe I overlooed in when I last read the constitution.

[Jon M.]

There are many things that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but nonetheless wind up in the Federal courts because the courts decide what the Constitution implicitly means.

[Andrew Smith]

It is not up to the courts to decide what the Constitution implicitly means. This is an idea created by Hamiltonian nationalists who believe that it's acceptable to interpret the Constitution in ways which grant greater powers to government than otherwise explicitly stated. The "implied powers" are used to circumvent and override states' rights to claim powers beyond the legitimate reach of the federal government and SCOTUS usually decides to pronounce it law. It is this untenable approach to law which has moved this country closer to tyranny with each successive generation.

"Andrew, how does the Kalamazoo ordinance usurp property and business owners rights? Do you suggest we allow said individuals to also deny guaranteed equal rights to others based on minority status, disability status, family status, and those who receive money from government sources? Because that's all the Kalamazoo ordinance does, is expand existing law. Were it not for these housing and employment laws, most rental housing and businesses would be pure, healthy WASPS with no children."

YNH, I should think this is plainly obvious. When the government tells a property owner to whom they can and can not rent, and a business owner whom they can or can not refuse employment, their rights to control who lives on their property and who works at their business are violated. Housing and employment are not rights. A home is a product purchased or rented when a contract is created between a buyer (or renter) and a seller. A job is a voluntary exchange a labor for goods. To say that one has a right to a house or a job is to say that one has the right to a product another person owns.

I think your claim that housing and the business community would be completely segregated were it not for laws like this is ridiculous. Should the government go in and break up senior communities? The disbursement of government money is already based on discrimination by collecting funds from everyone and directing them to specific groups rather than allowing individuals to keep what they earn. The government has no right to step into a voluntary agreement between individuals regarding housing or employment.

But hey, if the citizens of Kalamazoo want their government to dictate housing and hiring requirements, it's their choice. In the long run, any perceived social gains will have to judged by the people living there. I see no benefit to it other than to add bureaucracy.

[Jon M.]

Smith - You are implying that the founders were incapable of error. Next you will be claiming that they received the Constitution directly from God like the 10 commandments inscribed on tablets of stone. The founders were human with all the foibles of mere mortals and whatever they produced reflects both their virtues and failings. This product is no more perfect than what they were and should not be imbued with some magic powers.

[yournamehere]

Of course, Andrew, the Constitution should stay AS WRITTEN, no straying from it. We've had this conversation before. Then we not only wouldn't have that pesky black guy in the WH, he wouldn't even be able to vote for himself, nor would he be allowed to READ the Constitution as he'd still be considered 3/5 of a man.

[Timo Kokko]

YNH,
You are totally dissembling. There is a procedure for changing the Constitution, as planned for by those pesky, smart, old dead white guys, that should be followed. It should not be ignored for political expediency. The procedure was followed so the current occupant is legally in the WH (assuming he was born in Hawaii that is).

[Andrew Smith]

Jon, I never claimed the founders were perfect. Some of them, like Hamilton and even Thomas Jefferson, at times acted in complete contradiction with the very values which they prescribed in the Constitution. That does not mean we should give license to our politicians to cast aside those values and principles which were made abundantly clear in their writings. Would intellectually honest individuals ever use a single example to justify rewriting the understanding of history in regards to their intentions? I don't think so.

As Timo has stated, there is a process in place for changing the Constitution, which is precisely how civil rights were protected and from which judicial decisions regarding them should be rendered. Allowing judges to expand those rights unilaterally gives the judicial branch unconstitutional authority to legislate. At the same time, allowing the legislature to circumvent those procedures and enact blatantly unconstitutional laws (as they have done again and again) cheapens the rule of law in America and neuters the Constitution in practice.

Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that "all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people" [XIIth. Amendmt.]. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

The men who wrote the Constitution and established the republic actually fought and died for their freedom. Most of us just give lip service to the concept of freedom and independence but these guys actually lived it. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that they would have a (slightly?) better understanding of the type of government they established in this document, what they had fought for, and how to best achieve it?

The suggestion that the Constitution is a "living" document and that it must evolve also suggests that the concepts of freedom and independence in the Jeffersonian sense are outdated; that the world has somehow become too complicated for men to direct their own lives and that we need more government to help us do this. That is the same line of thinking that has led successive Congresses to bend, ignore, and break the provisions of the Constitution to take our responsibilities on themselves "for the good of the people." If that is the kind of country the people truly want, then they can have it. All it takes is to revise the Constitution, but allowing politicians to effectively accomplish the same through illegal acts in Congress (which is how they have, in my opinion, created this perception in the minds of the public in the first place), is an affront to any person who respects the authority of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

[Timo Kokko]

Andrew,
Well said. Clear enough for both YNH and Jon to comprehend should they chose to so do.

[yournamehere]

Timo: "The procedure was followed so the current occupant is legally in the WH (assuming he was born in Hawaii that is)."

This statement says so much more about you than you'll ever know.

Timo's a birther. Explains a lot. Are you a Teabagger, too? Literally, or just the political version?

[Timo Kokko]

YNH,
Thanks for taking the bait. I have frequently said I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but I'm baffled why he won't release his birth certificate. Just as with his association with Ayers, his time at Columbia, etc. He is a secretive character and the press doesn't care. As some famous quote says, "Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are." Obama has shown us who he is with Ayers, Jones, Wright, Sunstein, etc; a far-left liberal.

[Ceart]

YNH - Just because the LSJ censor is too dense to understand your meaning doesn't make it less despicable. Dave got kicked off the blog for much less than that. When you mock people using homophobic terms, does that make you a homophobe?

[Ceart]

Andrew - Well said. That is one of the primary foundations of conservatism that liberals will never understand.

Is "XIIth Amendment" a mistake in the source document you quoted? It obviously should be the "Xth Amendment".

[Andrew Smith]

Ceart, I have found that most sources cite this incorrectly and I can find very few which cite it properly. However, here is the scan of the original and interestingly, it is very difficult to read that particular phrase. I can see how the problem occurred. Perhaps Jefferson had a bad day?

http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/013/0900/0984.jpg

[Ceart]

Now that is research! Tracking to an original source document. You are right. It does say "XII". I would think that, somewhere along the line, a historian would have written at least a volume on that error.

[Timo Kokko]

Andrew, you never cease to amaze me; in a positive direction though, as opposed to the Nancy, Harry and Barry show.

[Ricky]

The first amendment sent to the states dealt with Congress and how members were to be allotted.

The second amendment became the 27th Amendment regarding Congressional pay increases when it was finally ratified in 1992.

It seems so natural that freedom of speech, the press, assembly, religion, and petition would come first that it was pretty surprising to learn that they didn't.

Good find on the primary source, Andrew. I think you earned an A with a little bit of extra credit.