Gay marriage

Friday, March 12, 2010

Many towns across the state supported a proposal asking the state Legislature to propose a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, and that’s sad.

This petition warrant article was marketed as a “let the people decide” concept, but was, in reality, an anti-gay marriage drive aimed at overturning a decision by the state Legislature that finally gave gay men and women the right to marry.

It’s a pity, and we hope the Legislature takes one quick look at the results of this nonbinding nonsense and ignores it.

New Hampshire has a republican form of government for many reasons, but one is to protect the rights of minorities against they tyranny of the majority. Simply put, “the people” simply can’t vote on every issue. On questions of statewide or nationwide issues, decisions must be left to elected officials.

Or, of course, the courts.

The Founding Fathers knew that, which is why they created a republican form of government and set up the Supreme Court as the final arbiter.

So, why didn’t the anti-gay marriage people take their quest to the courts? Because they knew they wouldn’t win. In recent years, courts have come to finally realize that gay men and women should be granted the same rights as straight people, just as, finally, the U.S. Supreme Court came to realize that black men and women should have the same rights as white men and women.

The anti-gay marriage people were, however, pretty confident that they could get people to vote in favor of their “let the people decide” petition because, after all, they would get the anti-gay marriage vote and they would also convince enough people that they really meant what they were saying to get some votes there, too.

They were right.

But this was never about letting the people vote. This is about making sure gay men and women don’t have equal rights.

There’s more to this, too, as one of our readers pointed out. The proposed constitutional amendment says this: “The State shall only recognize as marriage, whether in name or effect, the union of one man and one woman.” Our reader believes, and we concur, that “whether in name or effect” refers to civil unions, not just marriage.

If that is the case, then the aim is not just to define marriage, but to make sure gay men and women don’t have the rights they deserve.

Fortunately, the Legislature still has the final word. We don’t need a constitutional amendment on this issue. Gay marriage is here, and it should stay.