Maine: Rights shouldn't be subject to a popularity contest

By Jo-Ann Armao Maine???s vote to repeal the state???s law allowing gays and lesbians to marry is sure to revive the debate in D.C. about whether to submit this issue to voters. The District is on the verge of enacting legislation permitting same-sex marriages, but opponents think the voters should decide. They trumpet a supposed devotion to democracy but overlook what I think is the far more powerful argument of city officials who are resisting a referendum: that the inalienable rights of human beings cannot -- and should not -- be subject to a popularity contest. The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 is now before the D.C. Council, and there are more than enough votes for its passage. The bill follows the success of Council Member David A. Catania (I-At Large) in winning passage of a law recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Efforts by opponents to nullify that law ran into a brick wall when the Board of Elections and Ethics ruled it couldn???t go on the ballot because it violated the city???s human rights law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. In essence, the board said that, just as you can???t put the rights of women or African Americans or Jews to a vote, neither can you hold a plebiscite on the rights of gays and lesbians. No doubt it will make the same determination when it is petitioned to hold a referendum on the soon-to-be-approved law allowing same-sex marriages. In looking at Tuesday???s heartbreaking results in Maine -- which joined 30 other states in sanctioning discrimination -- I have to wonder about the strategy of gay-rights groups going state by state in an effort to build popular support for their cause. Maybe they will have a better chance with efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage and can be overturned without voter approval. Or even better, maybe the courts will recognize the fact that these are rights that are given, rather ones to be granted. Yes, I know that so-called activist judges are held in disfavor, but think what would have happened if the residents of Topeka, Kansas got to decide whether to desegregate their schools in 1954. This isn???t a question of trusting the people to do the right thing. It???s just not their business.