Laws. And gays. And gay laws.

Why are issues about sexual orientation laws put to a vote, yet laws about rights for other minority groups are decided by the Supreme Court?

A brief and very incomplete timeline of important laws and court rulings:

- The Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1920): No one shall be denied the right to vote based on sex. Landmark case for women’s suffrage and rights movement.

- Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954): in a 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Landmark case for the Civil Rights Movement.

- Loving v. Virginia (1967): in a 9-0 vote, the Supreme Court overruled prior laws banning interracial marriage.

- Turner v. Safley (1987): prisoners have the right to marry. [Needless to say, in many states convicted felons lose their rights to vote for a period of time after their release from prison - and in Kentucky and Virginia, felons are denied the right to vote permanently.]

- Defense of Marriage Act (1996), Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419:
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

- Lawrence v. Texas (2003): sodomy is no longer illegal.

- Goodridge vs. Dept. of Health (2004): The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.” Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state’s constitution “affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens,” the state had no “constitutionally adequate reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples,” and “The right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference.” On the legal aspect, instead of creating a new fundamental right to marry, or more accurately the right to choose to marry, the Court held that the State does not have a rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage on the ground of due process and equal protection.

Some countries with constitutional bans on gay marriage:
-Bulgaria
-Ukraine
-Democratic Republic of Congo
-Uganda
-Honduras
-Bolivia
-Paraguay
-Latvia

Countries that allow gay marriage:
-The Netherlands (2001): first country to legalize same-sex marriage
-Canada (2003)
-Belgium (2003)
-Spain (2005)
-South Africa (2006)
-Israel [foreign same-sex marriages recognized]
-Nepal [will be in new draft of constitution, as ordered by Supreme Court]
-Norway (2009)
-Sweden (2009)

Wouldn’t we – the US of A – rather be like Spain than Uganda? Like The Netherlands, and not like Latvia? Who even knows where Latvia is?? I do, but that’s not the point.

So why was Question 1 in Maine even raised? In May 2009, the Maine House and Senate passed the bill called “An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom” and Governor Baldacci signed it into law. Then some groups, who felt threatened by gays being able to marry, petitioned to have the law repealed. It went to a vote, as Question 1 – as part of the checks-and-balance system of government we have. And the voters of Maine said, “Nope, we don’t want that extra 60 million dollars of revenue from your glitzy gay weddings, or thousand new jobs. Spend that homo money in Mass, you fag.”

What. The. Fuck.

Final thoughts:
If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then don’t get one and shut the fuck up.
I’m tired of hearing biblical arguments about this issue. 1) I don’t believe in the bible. 2) Marriage is a civil contract. 3) Is Britney Spears’ quickie marriage [and subsequent quickie divorce] really the kind of “sanctity of marriage” you want to uphold?

I sure as shit don’t.