On the Maine results
Yeah, fuck.
And echoes of California, in that we were all expecting a different result, but in the end, it was a surprise loss. And yet, Maine was all the more of a surprise, because, even though No on 1 was out-spent, we all saw much more of a vocal reaction to what was (rightly) percieved as heavy pressure from out-of-staters on the Yes on 1 side. Further, the Yes campaign was, in a word, rather bad. Inept. Lame. As we've seen in other places, the campaign strategy seemed to hinge on spreading outrageous lies as far and wide as possible, and hope that they took root with enough people who didn't know better. And while No did an excellent job couching marriage equality as a "Mainer values" issue, it's clear that the incoherent lies (vote yes or THEY'LL TEACH YOUR CHILDREN HOW TO GET GAY MARRIED) weren't adaquitely dispelled enough.
Either that, or 50% + a few people really don't think gays should have equal civil rights. Which might also actually be true. It's hard to argue with an 0-in-31 track record.
And, that prospect is depressing, obviously. But, it's also worth looking at the history of civil rights in this country: I have little doubt that, for example, in 1954, 50%+ a handful of people in America were proponents of, or indifferent to segregation. And, certainly, more than 50% of the money was. I'm pretty sure, as well, that in 1967, there were *still* 50%+ a number of people who were opponents of, or indifferent to, the prospect of mixed-race marriage. If the laws that were on the books in nearly 30 states even then are any indication.
My point being, there's a reason why we shouldn't believe that civil rights is a matter subject to majority votes. The whole point of our civic system is to protect the rights of minorities, even under rule of the majority. Ultimately, the civil rights movement of decades passed succeeeded not merely on the strength of their grass roots, but also because of support on the federal level and because of a judicial system that affirmed those civil rights. In the latter case, we're in a rather unfortunate place judicially right now. But, I do think that for success on marriage equality, it is imperative that we put much more pressure on the federal government, and in particular, President Obama, to demonstrate leadership on this issue. On this, as with too many other issues, the President's reticence is ultimately an impediment: his political capital will rapidly run out, unless he actually starts putting it to good use. And it's time we all remind him of this. Because on this, as with so many other present issues, we're going to be doomed to falter and fail and be stuck with compromises and half-measures that accomplish nothing, absent strong actual leadership from those we put in office.
And echoes of California, in that we were all expecting a different result, but in the end, it was a surprise loss. And yet, Maine was all the more of a surprise, because, even though No on 1 was out-spent, we all saw much more of a vocal reaction to what was (rightly) percieved as heavy pressure from out-of-staters on the Yes on 1 side. Further, the Yes campaign was, in a word, rather bad. Inept. Lame. As we've seen in other places, the campaign strategy seemed to hinge on spreading outrageous lies as far and wide as possible, and hope that they took root with enough people who didn't know better. And while No did an excellent job couching marriage equality as a "Mainer values" issue, it's clear that the incoherent lies (vote yes or THEY'LL TEACH YOUR CHILDREN HOW TO GET GAY MARRIED) weren't adaquitely dispelled enough.
Either that, or 50% + a few people really don't think gays should have equal civil rights. Which might also actually be true. It's hard to argue with an 0-in-31 track record.
And, that prospect is depressing, obviously. But, it's also worth looking at the history of civil rights in this country: I have little doubt that, for example, in 1954, 50%+ a handful of people in America were proponents of, or indifferent to segregation. And, certainly, more than 50% of the money was. I'm pretty sure, as well, that in 1967, there were *still* 50%+ a number of people who were opponents of, or indifferent to, the prospect of mixed-race marriage. If the laws that were on the books in nearly 30 states even then are any indication.
My point being, there's a reason why we shouldn't believe that civil rights is a matter subject to majority votes. The whole point of our civic system is to protect the rights of minorities, even under rule of the majority. Ultimately, the civil rights movement of decades passed succeeeded not merely on the strength of their grass roots, but also because of support on the federal level and because of a judicial system that affirmed those civil rights. In the latter case, we're in a rather unfortunate place judicially right now. But, I do think that for success on marriage equality, it is imperative that we put much more pressure on the federal government, and in particular, President Obama, to demonstrate leadership on this issue. On this, as with too many other issues, the President's reticence is ultimately an impediment: his political capital will rapidly run out, unless he actually starts putting it to good use. And it's time we all remind him of this. Because on this, as with so many other present issues, we're going to be doomed to falter and fail and be stuck with compromises and half-measures that accomplish nothing, absent strong actual leadership from those we put in office.