I started thinking a bit more about the votes in Maine and Washington on Tuesday, and in California last year.  The founding fathers never envisioned or wanted the rights of a class of people put up to a popular vote.

There will always be classes of people who are less popular than others.  Do we really want the rights of those groups to be decided by a majority vote?  I submit that we do not.  It’s tyranny of the majority.  The founding fathers were quite concerned about this possibility.  It looks like their concerns were well founded.

We have equal protection under the law in this country for a reason.  These referenda are simply about a majority keeping a minority from enjoying the same rights and protections that the majority has.

We’ve seen the same thing over and over in our history.  We’re seeing it again now.  Some groups were denied their civil rights and had to fight the status quo to gain them.  Gays are fighting an identical battle right now.  The majority should not have the right to keep a specific group down.  We’re supposed to be better than that in this country.  But we’ve forgotten the 1960s, it seems, only 40 or so years later.

I just came across an Andrew Sullivan post about popular sovereignty and what a crock it is as applied to rights.  Either everyone is created equally and we live up to that standard, or they’re not, and Orwell was right in thinking that some animals are more equal than others.

Just last week I finished teaching the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and when I read the Rod Dreher post you linked to, I immediately thought of Stephen Douglas’s arguments for “popular  sovereignty” — the notion that states, especially former territories entering the Union,  could vote slavery “up” or “down” as they saw fit.

Lincoln saw what a fatuous argument “popular sovereignty” was — that it really is the destruction of self-government to allow fundamental rights to be determined by the whims of a majority. The Declaration precedes the Constitution. “All men are created equal” is the necessary preface to “We the People.”

Equal rights and the consent of the governed are the principles that make self-government intelligible in the first place. Without them, of course, there are no real limits to what majorities can enact, including doing away with democratic rule. This is why Lincoln repeatedly said that lurking in Douglas’s doctrine of popular sovereignty were the same arguments used to justify the divine right of kings. Once “all men are created equal” is dispensed with, once it is no longer held to apply to a certain group of people, what might limit the arbitrary rule of a few, or one, over other groups without their consent?

I understand, of course, the “legitimacy” victories in the democratic process confer on any movement. But for me, the legitimacy of the love and relationships of gay couples already is there. It’s a right, grounded in our basic equality. And no majority should be able to take that away. So there’s a real ambivalence here.

Here’s one of my favorite Lincoln quotes, from an 1855 letter to Joshua Speed:

“I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

Insert “gay” for “negroes” in the above and my point is made. His logic resonates still.

No historical analogies are perfect, of course. But this is a great irony, no? The Party of Lincoln is now aping the discredited arguments of Stephen Douglas (and for that matter, John C. Calhoun).

One other thought.  I am disgusted by the DNC and President Obama.  Their indifference to our rights is appalling.  Well, Mr. President, we’re ever so sorry to bother you with our humanity and our need for equal rights.  My boycott of giving Obama and/or the DNC any of my money is intact, so long as DADT and DOMA are still the laws of the land, and as long as they don’t begin to stand up for our civil rights as much as we stood up for their elections last fall.  I’m not asking them to win our rights for us, just to deliver on the promises they made.  And, by the way, I’d like the gay rights groups — like HRC — to hold the president to his promises and to stop being taken in by cocktail and dinner parties.

It was Election Day yesterday.  People went to the polls to elect governors in New Jersey and Virginia, and members of Congress in New York and California.  Voters in Maine also decided a ballot measure on same-sex marriage.

I mostly want to talk about the referendum in Maine, but first a word or two about the votes in New Jersey and Virginia.  I disagree with the notion that these votes were somehow a report card on President Obama’s performance.  That, of course, isn’t to say that no lessons should be drawn from this election, just that the media are making mountains out of mole hills (or at least small hills), as they are wont to do. 

Let’s take Virginia:  Virginia voters have, for the past five gubernatorial elections, elected the opposite of the party controlling the White House.  If a Democrat won the White House, the Virginia Governor’s Mansion always went to a Republican, and vice-versa.  And that isn’t even mentioning the absolutely dismal campaign that Creigh Deeds ran.  In New Jersey, voters rejected the status quo and the corruption under Jon Corzine.

Now to Maine.  Same-sex marriage was repealed in Maine by a vote of 53 to 47 percent.  That margin is nearly the same as the margin on Proposition 8 in California last year.  A same-sex marriage law had been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor earlier this year.  The law had been suspended pending the outcome of the election.  This means, of course, that supporters of same-sex marriage have never won at the ballot box.

I think it shows that voters are still too easily swayed by what amounts to propaganda about same-sex marriage and that people are still caught up in traditional definitions of what makes a marriage.  People still can’t seem to separate religious and civil marriage, which are two distinct and separate things.  Until people see that distinction — which is blurry to many — we’re going to have these defeats at the ballot box.  I’m heartened, though, that same-sex marriage continues to win in court.  I think that the real victory will come in the legal system, just as the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by Loving v. Virginia.

Just as I was disgusted by the proponents of Yes on 8 (the no same-sex marriage crowd), I am similarly disgusted by the absolute disregard for people’s families that is being shown by the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine.  Take a look at some comments from Matt Barber.  They’re not pretty, but they show exactly what the anti-gay referenda are really about — homophobia, pure and simple (Hat Tip:  Pam’s House Blend – emphasis in Pam’s post).

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit “same-sex marriage” by 53% – 47%:”There’s good news and bad news here,” said Barber. “The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ’same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted – hopefully for good this time – in favor of protecting legitimate marriage. A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1′ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner.

“Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1′ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word ‘marriage,’ even suggesting that ‘domestic partnerships’ (‘gay marriages’ by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow ‘gay’ duos the word ‘marriage’? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about ‘marriage.’ It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker – who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room – homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda – counterfeit marriage might have prevailed.”

I don’t know how else his comments can be construed.  They’re simply homophobic and show what the anti-gay referenda are really about.  It seems to me that they’re about hate.  They hate gays and any perceived (even if it’s not true) invasion of the little boxes into which they want to put people.  As Pam notes in her post:

The fact is that it was, yet again, not yet time to test equality when put to a popular vote. It is proof, yet again, that civil rights should never be decided by mob rule — but the hateful people behind Yes on 1 capitalize on spreading fear — suckling pigs at the teat of dying, mud-covered sow of homophobia.  The hog is going to die.  Hate alone cannot sustain that beast.

We should find solace in the fact that the children and grandchildren of those who voted to rollback the rights of fellow Mainers will be embarrassed that their relatives were so short-sighted, duped by entities that exist solely to discriminate using the ballot box as a weapon — and making money off of the hate with great gusto.

Pam’s right.  People are going to look back in a few decades and wonder what all the fuss was about.  They’re going to look askance at their grandparents and wonder why they were so bigoted.  It’s going to be the same thing as what happened with inter-racial marriage a few decades ago.  Most of us wonder what the fuss was about.

So this is a major disappointment.  But we’ll get over it, learn from it, and keep advancing the cause of equal rights for LGBT people in America.  I still think the major victory is going to come in the courts, maybe even the Olson/Boies case now pending in federal court.  But whichever way it happens, it will happen.  It’s as inevitable now as it was when Gavin Newsom stupidly opened his fat mouth in 2004 and declared it so.

UPDATE: I just read David Mixner’s excellent post on yesterday’s election results in Maine.  He called the campaign against gay rights “gay apartheid.”  I agree.  I also agree that it is reprehensible for President Obama to sit on the sidelines.  I’ve been worried all year that maybe we have lost a major opportunity to repeal DOMA and DADT.  We’ve gotten some legislation, but DADT and DOMA are the big, consequential pieces of legislation that have to be repealed.  What is going to make Obama work on our behalf now?  I’m tired of half measures and getting patted on the head and told to go away.  I’m tired of politicians who do that.  I’m beginning to be sorry I worked for and voted for Obama last fall.  I’m beginning to be sorry I thought that he was different.

Am I the only woman in the world who thinks that President Obama should be able to play basketball with whomever he wishes to play?  We have a New York Times story breaking the news about President Obama’s White House frat house feel:

Does the White House feel like a frat house?

The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players.

[snip]

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

While the senior adviser Valerie Jarrett is undeniably one of the president’s closest White House confidantes, some women inside or close to the administration complain that Mr. Obama’s female advisers are not as visible as their male colleagues or, they suspect, as influential.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton administration whose sister, Betsy, served as the Obama campaign’s chief operating officer.

Ms. Myers said women have high expectations of the president. “Obama has a personal style that appeals to women,” she said. “He is seen as a consensus builder; he is not a towel snapper and does not tell crude jokes.”

I find myself agreeing with Kathleen Parker in today’s Washington Post.  This is all one big yawn.  I mean, can you see Senator Barbara Mikulski playing basketball with the president as Obama drives to the basket?  Well, it would be comedic.  Basketball is, after all, a contact sport.

 We in the United States have enough problems (two wars, health care reform, gay rights, global warming, to name just a few) without being so over-sensitive to non-issues.  Obama has, as Valerie Jarrett pointed out, appointed women to many high-level posts inside the White House.  To me, this is what matters.  I get that this is about access to the president.  But I think that Obama should be able to play ball with whoever he wants to play ball with.  And the rest of America needs to grow up.

Does this really still happen in America in 2009?  What century does this guy think we’re living in?

HAMMOND, La. — A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.

Thirty-year-old Beth Humphrey and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey told the newspaper she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell’s wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples.

“It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009,” said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzman. “The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry.”

The ACLU was preparing a letter for the Louisiana Supreme Court, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and see if they can remove him from office, Schwartzman said.

“He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it,” Schwartzman said.

According to the clerk of court’s office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.

Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.

The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk’s office.

More random thoughts on issues of the day:

• President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today.  While I am a supporter of his, what has he done to win this already?  Keep in mind that the nomination deadline was 12 days after Obama took office (the deadline is February 1).  I think there is a good possibility that Obama could earn this prize later in his term as president, but he doesn’t seem to have done much yet other than lay out some goals and set a tone.
• State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano was out of line yesterday.  He yelled “You lie!” and “Kiss my gay ass!” to Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday during a speech the governor was making to a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco.  Apparently the governor was not expected.  It was, after all, a Democratic fundraiser and Schwarzenegger is a Republican.  But Ammiano was out of line.  This kind of attack should have no place in American politics.  It doesn’t matter if emotions are running high.  That kind of thing is just not needed.  The only (slightly) redeeming factor is that Ammiano’s outburst did not come during a joint session of Congress.
• Apparently the National Republican Congressional Committee thinks that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to be “put in her place” and said as much yesterday.  Do they not see how offensive that is?  Do they not see how sexist that is?  I’m not exactly a huge Nancy Pelosi supporter, but this just isn’t right.
• Charlie Rangel needs to resign.  Now.  Every day he doesn’t (and every day the House Democratic leadership continues to protect him), the chances grow that he’ll cost the Democrats in next year’s mid-term elections.  “The Republicans did it, too!” (with Tom DeLay) is not a good defense.  Sure, the Republicans are hypocritical in their posturing.  So what?  It only matters what Rangel did and the appearance of Democrats improperly protecting their own.
• Julian Bond is right on in his op-ed in today’s Washington Post.  LGBT people still do not have equal rights in America.  As he points out, our “…struggle is no less necessary, nor worthy, than a similar struggle fought by blacks several decades ago. Now, as then, Americans are denied rights simply because of who they are.”  It’s past time we had equal rights.  It’s also past time for Obama (and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) to actually do something to help get those rights passed in Congress