Voters’ views, not just legislators,’ subject to change

Friday, February 5, 2010

To the Editor:

I read the Letters to the Editor each week, and have been listening with interest to the debate in recent weeks over the issue of marriage equality. After reading the letter from Mary Zore in last week’s Journal, I was moved to write a letter myself.

Mrs. Zore is of the opinion that allowing state legislators, “whose seats are up for grabs every few years,” to decide the definition of marriage in New Hampshire “makes the definition of marriage into nothing but a sort of social fashion or fad.” She then suggests the issue be decided by Granite State voters, rather than the politicians those voters elected. I don’t disagree with her suggestion per se – the crux of democracy is active citizen participation – but rather her assertion that voters are not subject to the same swings of opinion that she believes our democratically-elected legislators are.

Following this reasoning, one could conclude that public opinion doesn’t change on matters such as marriage equality, abortion, or other, less divisive matters. I take issue with the idea that our legislators are described as a “temporary legislative body” in a seemingly derogatory manner. Yes, they are elected to fixed terms, precisely for the reason that public opinions change over time.

Mrs. Zore worries that by blocking a public vote, we steer closer to a dictatorship. A dictatorship is a situation in which the right to vote on laws affecting the citizenry is never offered. That is not our situation.

Chiding our legislators for their “temporary” jobs (and implying that their votes are somehow less valid because of that) seems to make the case for dictatorial rule, not against it.

Further, how will allowing citizens to vote prevent current societal trends from being committed to our state’s laws? Public opinions change, and I think that is what opponents to equality fear – that soon, a majority of New Hampshire voters will choose to allow their friends and neighbors to share the same status as “traditional” married couples. Perhaps that is the reason marriage equality opponents are calling for a statewide vote so vociferously. It seems to me these individuals want to commit a law onto the books before public opinion shifts against them. I think they realize their support is “here today, gone tomorrow.”

HANNAH ONOROSKI

Brookline