How Civil Rights are Born

1. How Civil Rights are Born Why the People Should Vote on Marriage and What Will Happen in Massachusetts if They Don’t By Democracy, Not Lawsuits Responding to the Argument that “Civil Rights Should not be Put to a Vote”

2. Introduction • 170,000 citizens petitioned for a 2008 ballot question on marriage. • Proposed amendment defines marriage as opposite-sex union. • Legislature must vote, twice, to move the amendment to the ballot. • Some argue the Legislature should refuse to send the amendment to the people.

3. Questions Raised • Should Civil Rights Be Put To A Vote? • Will Marriage Amendment “Take Away Civil Rights”? • Will Referendum on Marriage Tyrannize Minority?

4. How Civil Rights Are Born—By Democracy, Not Lawsuits • Civil Rights Come From the People, Not the Courts • Deciding Civil Rights Is the People’s Civil Right • Justice Requires Democracy Before Punishment • Fear of Tyranny By the People Doesn’t Justify Tyranny Of the People

5. I. Civil Rights Come From the People, Not the Courts • In a democracy, the People rule. • Judges are “servants”, not trump cards. • Civil rights are creatures of democracy, established by the People through constitutions and statutes. • Goodridge lacks democratic roots. • Thus, no “civil right” to same-sex marriage exists as ratified by the people.

6. I. Civil Rights Come From the People, Not the Courts C(2). Race: 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments C(3). Race: Civil Rights Acts C(3). Brown v. Board of Ed.—14th Am. C(4). Sex: US-Civil Rights Act of 1964; MA- ERA 1976 C(5). Same Sex Marriage? Zip, Nada, Zero

7. I. Civil Rights Come From the People, Not the Courts Thus, not any public debate, deliberation of the people, or ratification by democracy, but only a lawsuit, is all that backs the supposed “civil right” of same-sex marriage. This is not how civil rights are born.

8. II. Deciding Civil Rights Is the People’s Civil Right • Art. 48 of the MA Constitution guarantees ballot access as a civil right. • The people’s right to set policy by ballot takes precedence over the courts and the legislature. • Even supporters of same-sex marriage recognize the majority’s necessary role in legitimizing civil rights. • If the Legislature refuses to allow a vote on marriage, then Art. 48, and the civil right it grants to the people, is dead.

9. II. Deciding Civil Rights Is the People’s Civil Right A(2). “The principle of the initiative and referendum in its purity means that the people of this Commonwealth may have such laws and may have such a Constitution as they see fit themselves to adopt.” Mr. Joseph Walker, a member of the 1912-13 constitutional convention approving Article 48

10. III. Justice Requires Democracy Before Punishment • Will Apostles of Tolerance Be Tolerant? • Goodridge Plays Bigot Card • Legal Consequences • Punishment Should Reflect Moral Condemnation of Community, Not Courts • Unjust to Deny People a Vote When Punishment Is At Stake

11. III. Justice Requires Democracy Before Punishment B. SJC ruled that support for traditional marriage is: • As evil as racism, • Based on sexual orientation prejudice, • A civil rights violation, and • No longer to be tolerated by the state.

12. III. Justice Requires Democracy Before Punishment B(1). The use of racial analogies in the discussion of same-sex marriage . . . threatens to place the traditional view of marriage beyond the pale. Cathy Young, Boston Globe Columnist

13. III. Justice Requires Democracy Before Punishment C. Consequences of Goodridge: • Supporters of traditional marriage will be treated as harshly as racists; • Traditional marriage policy now automatically violates any sexual orientation laws.

14. III. Justice Requires Democracy Before Punishment C(3). Private groups and individuals refusing to recognize same-sex marriage can be punished for criminal and tortious interference with a “civil right.” M.G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H, -I; M.G.L. c. 265, § 37. C(4). Specifically, any appeal to morality will be deemed a form of “force” or “coercion” meriting punishment. 417 Mass. 467; 45 Mass. App. Ct. 495.

15. IV. Fear of Tyranny By the People Doesn’t Justify Tyranny Of the People • Denying the people a vote is the essence of tyranny. • Opponents of the marriage amendment are capable of waging a strong ballot campaign. • Neither judges nor politicians are more qualified than the people to settle the question of what is marriage and what is to be punished as bigotry.

16. IV. Fear of Tyranny By the People Doesn’t Justify Tyranny Of the People “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.” Thomas Jefferson

17. Questions Answered • Should Civil Rights Be Put To A Vote? Rather the question is, should the people decide what is to be given civil protection in the first place? Yes. • Will Marriage Amendment “Take Away Civil Rights”? No. Massachusetts citizens have not ratified a civil right to same-sex marriage. • Will Referendum on Marriage Tyrannize Minority? No. It’s democracy, not tyranny, to let the people exercise their civil right to define marriage in a debate involving both sides.

18. Conclusion A vote by the people against the marriage amendment ratifies the Goodridge ruling, thus mandating same-sex marriage and the punishment of those who disagree. A vote for the amendment reaffirms traditional marriage and denies that its defenders are bigots. The choice is clear. Since the people are sovereign, let the people decide.