On Not Taking a Vote

When you put rights to a vote, the minority always loses.

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey earlier this year vetoed a same-sex marriage act saying it should go to a vote. Just like, he said, many people would have preferred a referendum in the south in the 50s and 60s instead of the violence that went along with winning the civil rights of African-Americans.

Come again?

Yes, it might have avoided violence, at that time, but if that were the only way for minorities to win their rights, we would still be living in the Jim Crow era. BY DEFINITION, the minority would not have enough votes to pass such a law without a law that allowed them to vote in the first place. Such a law would be tough to pass without a fight. Like we had in the 50s and 60s.

With a same-sex marriage vote, the number of the minority is even less than the minority number of African-Americans 60 years ago. Of course it will lose.

Another commentator I heard say that the same-sex marriage debate has shifted faster than any major issue he has seen in modern times. Republican pollsters and some commentators are even saying that this is an issue that may find the GOP on the wrong side of history if they don't see what is happening. It would be very sad to see the anti-same-sex side take to the ballot box to force the minority to comply when it may very well be that these state constitutional amendments may turn out to be as relevant as the anti-intermarriage laws of 100 years ago are today.