Voting No

On November 6th, I will be voting "No" on a ballot initiative for same-sex marriage.  Although "No" sounds very negative, based on the wording of the law, it is actually a vote in support of same-sex marriage.

Very few political issues are cut-and-dry.  That's what makes them issues.   Although they sound nice as political soundbites, catchphrases rarely capture the complexity of any topic.   Take the Lilly Ledbetter issue that was legislated in 2008 and signed into law on President Obama's first day in office.  If you are against it - you are against women!  Most catchphrases equate support (or lack thereof) for the Act to be for (or against) equal pay for equal work.   Unfortunately, that isn't what the Lilly Ledbetter Act addresses.   Equal pay for equal work was ALREADY the law of the land.  You can not, and could not, discriminate based on gender.  Ms. Ledbetter was pursuing a lawsuit challenging the statute of limitations regarding when she could bring suit. 

The existing law said she had 180 days to bring suit.  She argued that she brought suit within six months of FINDING OUT she was underpaid due to gender.  The company claimed she did not have the right to sue because she was outside of 180 days of BEING paid less.  So the argument was when does the 180 day clock start ticking.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ms. Ledbetter's favor.  The six month clock starts ticking at the point she finds out - not the actual time period of being paid.  That seems fair.  To base start time in a period where she might be unaware that a violation of the law occurred would not be logical. 

If the law said you could only sue me 60 days after I stole from you, but it took 61 days for you to figure out I stole your favorite vase, that would actually increase my incentive to steal if I thought you wouldn't know.   However, if the law stated that you had 60 days from when you found out, it sets a legitimate time frame for you to determine if you wanted to sue me. 

Like many, I didn't really know the details of the Ledbetter Act.  I asked myself, was "so-and-so" really against "Equal Pay for Equal Work?"  So, I did some research on it, and looked at both sides.   Even though the Supreme Court ruling set a precedent that an employee had 180 days from when they concluded they were underpaid, Legislators (mostly Democrats - few, if any, Republicans supported the measure) decided to clarify the law.  They set the 180-day period from each and everytime the person was paid.  Therefore, one's statute of limitation became constantly rolling forward period so long as the person was being paid.  Consequently, someone could KNOW they were being underpaid, choose to remain in that situation indefinitely, and then bring lawsuit only after they felt they no longer wanted to work there.   It creates an open-ended liability, and a perverse incentive to wait to follow through on your legal right.   Some argue that in practice it actually HURTS women's pursuit of employment.


Consequently, I weighed the two sides, and chose the one that I thinks makes the most sense for now - and for future situations.

Conservative Economist and Professor Thomas Sowell makes the statement, "The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be."   My opinion is that statement is not precise, but broadly accurate.   The Ledbetter Act seems to fit that category.  But does the Marriage Act?

With that theory in mind, and the strategy of evaluating an issue from both sides, I approached the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.   Supporting the rights of all to marry seems like a reasonable proposal and relatively clear cut.  In fact, a vote in support of gay marriage next week doesn't even clear the way for gay marriage.  It only extends the discussion.  The vote is actually closer to the equivalent of a motion for summary judgement in the legal system.  Those that want to define marriage as between a man and a women want you to vote yes to close the door on the discussion.   

The quote, "you’d think the conservative position would be to keep government from interfering with the private decisions of individuals and the liberty of people to shape their lives as they see fit," seems appropriate.  If there is not a drain on society as a whole, or a law that forces one party to take on the liability of another, I would concur with that sentiment.   

The next obvious step was for me to understand why many are opposed (including many in my own party).  As I stated above, nothing debated is ever truly cut-and-dry.  If I can understand the opposition, I am better prepared as a voter to make a decision myself.   It is frightening how few people reach this decision-making step.

I think the article, Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage, does a decent job of clarifying the "Yes" vote. 

Although I originally thought the opposition to changing the definition of marriage was based in economics, it appears the debate is mostly based on social issues and perceived society's moral standard.  In particular, the concern is that a change in the definition of marriage will continue a decline in the role that gender plays in society and the family. 

Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant. 

 --The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France. 

--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land.

It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities.

I understand the concern and the political-correctness that certain institutions must adhere to is a problem.   As the article states, private business dating service, eHarmony, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.  The example from Rhode Island is particularly disconcerting.  

Although these issues are a problem, they are unintended consequences of a moral act.  The "Yes" side doesn't  present a compelling argument beyond "societal decline."  That just isn't good enough.  Such societal decline can be fought without prohibiting those who would like to marry from marrying. 

My support is behind "Vote No."