Few issues are as divisive and as emotionally charged as the fight over traditional marriage. It’s very difficult to keep the fight from becoming personal, and it becomes all too easy to demonize the people who disagree with you.
Unfortunately, this kind of animosity is not unique to the debate over marriage. Indeed, the fight over abortion has escalated beyond harsh words to violence and bloodshed, and we’re no closer to finding a resolution to that issue than we were almost four decades ago, when the Supreme Court lifted the abortion debate out of the legislative arena entirely with their disastrous decision in Roe v. Wade.
I’m firmly convinced that one of the reasons the abortion debate remains so toxic is that the voters were denied the ability to have their voices heard. By stifling the democratic process and “settling” the abortion issue by judicial fiat, the Supreme Court made the problem far worse. Yes, democracy is messy and difficult, but the best way to settle messy and difficult issues is to ultimately let the people decide.
The people were wrongly denied the right to vote on abortion. They should not be denied the right to vote on the definition of marriage.
The District of Columbia City Council disagrees. They passed a measure that denies the citizens of Washington D.C. the right to define marriage, which is consistent with the way this issue has been raised across the country. In every case where traditional marriage has been redefined, it has happened because a small group of people feels justified in making radical decisions about the fundamental institutions of our society.
Marriage is too important. The people need to decide.
That’s why I’ve introduced legislation in the United States Senate called the District of Columbia Referendum on Marriage Act that would require the District to put this matter to a vote. I’m also grateful to Representative Jason Chaffetz, who introduced this measure in the House of Representatives.
I’m under no illusions that a referendum will produce unanimity, or that the fight on both sides of the marriage debate will end anytime soon. But the fact remains that you don’t do democracy any favors when you try to smooth out its rougher edges.
On a matter as basic and fundamental as marriage, it’s essential that the people get to decide.
Please learn the understand the issues better if you’re going to pretend to represent us. The definition of marriage isn’t in question. What rights and privileges the government recognizes when someone gets married are. Any religion or group can perform a ‘marriage’, by whatever definition it sets. Whether or not the government recognizes that as qualifying for certain government rights and privileges is another issue.
Instead of looking to what other forms of marriage can be lumped together under what the government calls marriage, maybe we should be looking at removing the term ‘marriage’ altogether from the civil law books. Here’s my proposal:
1. Let ‘marriage’ be defined by whatever religion or group performs it. Whether it be ‘traditional’, ‘gay’, , etc….whatever.
2. Let those who get ‘married’ and want additional rights and privileges provided by the government, such as filing taxes jointly, medical rights, or property joint ownership, submit an application to the government to enter into a contract explicitly stating those rights and privileges. This contract shall have no bearing on the age, gender, race or sexual preference of the persons entering into the contract — only limiting it to two individuals and that no person can be a party to more than one of these types of contracts.
This should make the government able to recognize the equality of members of the LGBT community to that of every other citizen of this great country, while at the same time, abstaining from the whole religious controversy of defining what is or isn’t ‘marriage’.
Dear Senator Bennett,
As one of your constituents, a state Republican delegate (who will be running again this year for state delegate), and a long–time supporter, I am very discouraged by these actions. Allowing GLBT people the same rights as non-GLBT citizens seems only fair. Allowing GLBT citizens to marry doesn’t hurt any other type of marriage, and it would allow GLBT people access to the same rights and protections that everyone else has. The right to claim married on their tax returns, the rights to inheritance and hospital visitations, the right to own property jointly, the right to make life & death decisions for their loved one, the right to adopt the children of their spouse, etc. etc. etc.
There is no comparison between this type of “equal rights” legislation and abortion. We’re not talking about a human embryo’s right to life, we’re talking about the rights of adult, tax-paying, voting citizens to marry. Just because a person is gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender is no excuse to discriminate and that is exactly what you are trying to do with this type of legislation. Please start fighting FOR the equal rights of all citizens.
Our founding fathers created the constitution to protect all citizens from the tyranny of a few. It also was designed to protect the minority for the prejudicial views of a majority when it comes to equal rights and protections under the law. Your legislation does just the opposite which is exactly what happened in California – the majority by their vote took away the constitutional rights of a minority. By your actions you are spreading this type of discrimination.
American is the land of opportunity. It’s the land of freedom. The city leaders in DC believe in that freedom for all of their residents. I would hope that you would also believe in the freedoms of your constituents and work to preserve those rights for ALL citizens, not just the majority.
Melvin Nimer
464 Edith Avenue
SLC
801-657-9611
The citizens, not the judges need to decide.