# What motivates people to vote other people's rights away **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2009, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261 "2009-11-04T05:59:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/81 "2009-11-04T20:05:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > True. I think a lot of people react emotionally to SSM rather than intellectually. But if someone has at least gotten to the point of accepting Civil Unions for gays, it really is only a small step to get to being OK with calling it marriage. Accepting **yorick** ’s posts at face value, he/she is at the Civil Union phase. That’s almost there. Given the state of legislation out there (DOMA), civil unions are a meaningless step that people profess to support to avoid feeling bigoted while denying equal rights to gays. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/82 "2009-11-04T20:07:04Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > You don’t try to stop religion now, but what if they were sacrificing babies on their altars? It’s just a matter of abhorrence. > > The other thing with gay marriage is that it “lessens” straight marriage. It’s like giving everyone a trophy. “Marriage” is about love and commitment, intending to start a family and raise children. Gay people just buttfuck one another and here people are telling them that they’re “married”. > > ^ A summary of the idea, not an endorsement. Marriage is about love? Ok. It is actually a legal and binding contract that deals with the transfer of wealth to the wife and descendants. I doubt you will see love mentioned in a marriage license. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/83 "2009-11-04T20:08:25Z")
Washington’s R-71 proves this point. It basically says that domestic partnerships (an already-existing institution in the state) are, in all characteristics besides name, absolutely equivalent to marriages. Now, R-71 passed last night, but the wingnuts were still out in force against it for the last few months, which proves to me that they don’t mean a damn thing when they say they’re for civil unions and only want to preserve the meaning of the word “marriage”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/84 "2009-11-04T20:08:26Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Given the state of legislation out there (DOMA), civil unions are a meaningless step that people profess to support to avoid feeling bigoted while denying equal rights to gays. I don’t accept that. I don’t think that most people really spend all that much time thinking this through. I don’t really remember my own evolution on this subject, but I’m certain that at some point in the past I would have opposed SSM, but mostly because I hadn’t really given much thought about gay people or what it means to be gay. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/85 "2009-11-04T20:08:44Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > I’m afraid that this is going to keep happening, and that it’s only a matter of time before voters in my state do the same thing. I hope they don’t because I want my best friend from high school and his SO to move back home, but I don’t blame them for assuming that the law isn’t going to last. sigh. I think the timing on the Maine law was unfortunate. Not even a midterm election it was a mid-mid term election. One would expect very low turnout. Those who do turn out tend to be the elderly and not the young which are conservative and not liberal. The vote was pretty close as is. I suspect had this vote happened a year ago it would have passed. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/86 "2009-11-04T20:10:16Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Washington’s R-71 proves this point. It basically says that domestic partnerships (an already-existing institution in the state) are, in all characteristics besides name, absolutely equivalent to marriages. > > Now, R-71 passed last night, but the wingnuts were still out in force against it for the last few months, which proves to me that they don’t mean a damn thing when they say they’re for civil unions and only want to preserve the meaning of the word “marriage”. What? When I think of “wingnuts”, I think of people who are very likely to oppose any acceptance of gays, and wouldn’t support Civil Unions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/87 "2009-11-04T20:10:17Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.” There you go. A right to marry. I supplied the period. But it’s that very period that confounds us. Because while there is a fundamental right to marry, it is not without limitation. We may not marry father to daughters, or sons to mothers, or brothers to sisters. It’s not an absolute right. It’s a right that society constrains. Where the ‘period’ goes is important. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/88 "2009-11-04T20:16:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t accept that. I don’t think that most people really spend all that much time thinking this through. I don’t really remember my own evolution on this subject, but I’m certain that at some point in the past I would have opposed SSM, but mostly because I hadn’t really given much thought about gay people or what it means to be gay. A civil union gives people next to nothing. People who say they can support civil unions not equal marriage rights tend to say that there is something special about marriage. Do you think they will sign on to a system whereby civil unions have every single right of marriage except for using the word? If so, what will be left about marriage that is “special”? If not, if you accept those in favor of civil unions rather than marriage want it to be more limited than marriage, which rights of married couples are you willing to sacrifice on behalf of my favorite cousin? Because I am not willing to make that choice for her. Each time this happens, I get more strident. It really is all or nothing now. It has got to the stage that decent minds can no longer differ on this. I am at a loss today as to how to behave towards my friends (the couple of them) who still oppose gay marriage. I don’t know, but my heart is telling me it is time to treat them as I would a friend who was in open opposition to interracial marriage, that is to cut them out of my life. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/89 "2009-11-04T20:20:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But it’s that very period that confounds us. Because while there is a fundamental right to marry, it is not without limitation. We may not marry father to daughters, or sons to mothers, or brothers to sisters. > > It’s not an absolute right. It’s a right that society constrains. Where the ‘period’ goes is important. Then you ought to have said that to begin with, rather than pretending you had never heard of such a right, n’est ce pas? So there is a fundamental right to marry. Now, justify taking it away from gay people. The right is fundamental, remember. You said so yourself. On edit: actually, just for the sake of conversation, let’s just use rational basis as a starting point, since I don’t even know what the state’s interest here really is. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/90 "2009-11-04T20:22:23Z")
> [@villa](#): > > A civil union gives people next to nothing. People who say they can support civil unions not equal marriage rights tend to say that there is something special about marriage. Do you think they will sign on to a system whereby civil unions have every single right of marriage except for using the word? If so, what will be left about marriage that is “special”? > > If not, if you accept those in favor of civil unions rather than marriage want it to be more limited than marriage, which rights of married couples are you willing to sacrifice on behalf of my favorite cousin? Because I am not willing to make that choice for her. > > Each time this happens, I get more strident. It really is all or nothing now. It has got to the stage that decent minds can no longer differ on this. I am at a loss today as to how to behave towards my friends (the couple of them) who still oppose gay marriage. I don’t know, but my heart is telling me it is time to treat them as I would a friend who was in open opposition to interracial marriage, that is to cut them out of my life. I disagree. Civil Unions might be an important step in many state (like CA, where I live) towards the process of legalizing SSM. There are many state-level benefits that gays get from Civil Unions, and I think it helps some people get used to the idea that gays aren’t some exotic, perverted group of people. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/91 "2009-11-04T20:25:42Z")
> [@villa](#): > > This is crazy. After all the time of telling people not to “impose” gay marriage by judicial fiat, and to do it through legislative action, the cry is now don’t do it through the legislature, do it through referendum? If they’re eventually going to put it to voters, what is the advantage of not doing so first? ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/92 "2009-11-04T20:27:29Z")
I didn’t read the intervening posts, but here’s my take on the situation: All people are born (or raised, depending on which side of that argument you’re on) with a fundamental view of other people: people are generally good, or people are generally evil. If your world view is that people are fundamentally evil (The Hobbes view,) you want to take away their rights because they might hurt themselves or others by abusing it. If you feel people are fundamentally good (The Locke view,) you want everybody to have lots and lots of rights, and that you trust them to use those rights responsibly. The big problem in the US today though is that people think they’re with Locke, but in actuality they are with Hobbes. It’s rather obvious with the gay rights debate, but the example I like to use comes from education. Currently, the education debate is overwhelmed by the idea that children are evil and stupid, therefore, they need to be told what classes to take, when to take them, how much to study, what to study, what to read, what not to read, good/bad music, good/bad TV shows, etc. If we truly thought humans are good, we would allow children to choose their own classes starting from 1st grade, listen/watch/do whatever they wanted, and trust them to do what is good for themselves. So imagine this: you tell a teenager to do whatever they want without asking. Do you think the outcome will be good or bad? Scary thought? You aren’t alone. However, the studies support the “humans are good” theory. One famous study took two groups of babies. One group was given an “expert” made, carefully monitored diet where they were given specific food in specific amounts at specific times. The second group was given an array of baby foods, and they could choose whichever foods they wanted and which foods they would eat at any time in any amount. The free choice group was healthier, had a higher weight, etc. etc. etc. Imho, humans have a tendency to create psychological “walls,” and anything inside the wall (including themselves) they view as “good,” while anything outside the wall (strangers, foreigners, etc.) are automatically bad. Therefore, for the majority of Americans, gays are outside of the wall. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/93 "2009-11-04T20:29:31Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > If they’re eventually going to put it to voters, what is the advantage of not doing so first? You are the one supporting changing the standard way that changes are made. Up to you to tell me why bigots should enforce this change. Personally I don’t think it should go to the voters. I don’t believe in government by referenda. Elect people, let them make decisions, if you don’t like their decisions then vote them out next time. If we want direct democracy, we should have it on all issues, not just a few, and we should live in anarchistic communes. I wouldn’t have a major issue with this, but I am not in favor of letting the hatemongers cherrypick which issues should go to direct votes. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/94 "2009-11-04T20:38:19Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Here’s a real test of whether the anti-gay-marriage people are actually anti-gay-marriage because they fear that traditional marriage will be destroyed: > > Are they fighting as hard for an end to divorce-on-demand? Are they fighting as hard for adultery to become an actual crime again? > > If those two questions are answered “No”, then they don’t really care all that much about marriage as an institution. They just want to push some fag faces in. I don’t know if that’s actually a good test. Somebody in that position might figure that the divorce and adultery issues are already settled, and that those are losing battles to fight. ---
**Author:** ![StoutHearted](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@StoutHearted](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StoutHearted)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/95 "2009-11-04T20:49:55Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > You don’t try to stop religion now, but what if they were sacrificing babies on their altars? It’s just a matter of abhorrence. I wouldn’t say that’s an apt analogy because with baby sacrifice, someone’s getting hurt. With gay marriage, no one is getting hurt. With the latter, there’s fear of the unknown, (the “what if…”, the anticipation that your own lifestyle will decrease in quality somehow) but that’s not comparable to actual murder or death. The consequences of baby sacrifice are concrete, consequences of gay marriage are merely speculative. In light of this, it does seem to me that there’s a curious, fanatical obsession with interfering in a lifestyle that causes no physical harm. Fear is a powerful motivator: fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of making God mad. Just like it’s hard to convince a frightened child that there’s no monster under the bed, it’s difficult to convince someone against gay marriage that legalization will not affect their personal life at all. It’s hard to argue against the intangible “what if.” ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/96 "2009-11-04T20:53:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think the timing on the Maine law was unfortunate. Not even a midterm election it was a mid-mid term election. One would expect very low turnout. Those who do turn out tend to be the elderly and not the young which are conservative and not liberal. > > The vote was pretty close as is. I suspect had this vote happened a year ago it would have passed. Turnout is this off-year election was about twice what was expected. Higher than usual turnout was supposed to be a good sign for No on 1. Maybe the only reason why the vote was so close was because of the high turnout; normal levels of turnout might have produced a more lopsided victory for Yes. [QUOTE=Villa] This is crazy. After all the time of telling people not to “impose” gay marriage by judicial fiat, and to do it through legislative action, the cry is now don’t do it through the legislature, do it through referendum?.. [/QUOTE] First it was activist judges violating the seperation of powers and usurping the legislature now it’s out of control lawmakers. When (not if) we finally win a referendum it’ll be the “liberal media” manipulating the voters. Or money and resources coming in from outside the state. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/97 "2009-11-04T20:58:13Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Sure they are. In the 60s bigoted assholes enforced the notion that two consenting adults who wanted to get married couldn’t. Because it (miscegenation) challenged their notions of decency. > > Today bigoted assholes enforce the notion that two consenting adults that want to get married can’t. Because it (buttsecks) challenges their notions of decency. It’s a clear analogy of the issue. > > You have the right to marry someone you are sexually attracted to. A gay person does not. Nonsense. Miscegenation laws were discrimination against people, not actions. In other words, two people were not allowed to perform an act that others were allowed to perform because of the race of the two people. Banning gay marriage is discrimiation against actions as opposed to people. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/98 "2009-11-04T20:59:41Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Then you ought to have said that to begin with, rather than pretending you had never heard of such a right, n’est ce pas? So there is a fundamental right to marry. I wasn’t pretending anything. A right is that for which denial of it has a legal remedy. When I said, “In forty-five states and the federal system, there is no ‘right to marry, period,’” it didn’t mean I had never heard the phrase. It meant I was denying that there was a legally cognizable right to do what you were describing. > [@](#): > > Now, justify taking it away from gay people. The right is fundamental, remember. You said so yourself. > > On edit: actually, just for the sake of conversation, let’s just use rational basis as a starting point, since I don’t even know what the state’s interest here really is. Under the law of what jurisdiction? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/99 "2009-11-04T21:09:42Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Nonsense. Miscegenation laws were discrimination against people, not actions. In other words, two people were not allowed to perform an act that others were allowed to perform > because of the race of the two people. Banning gay marriage is discrimiation against actions as opposed to people. Gays and lesbians aren’t people? What actions are gays and lesbians doing that are any different from what a mixed-sex couple do? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/100 "2009-11-04T21:09:50Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > This, my friend, is bullshit. You’re hiding behind this as a dishonest cover for discrimination against gays. If this were really the main issue for you, you would focus on getting the state of of the marriage business for everyone, but meanwhile agreeing that the status quo should apply to everyone. To suggest that you would vote against gays having equal rights to marry because you don’t think ANYone should “marry” is bigotry disguised as libertarianism. Yeah..you caught me. I secretly want to burn all fags at the stake :rolleyes: > [@lissener](#): > > Your vote still amounts to an act of discrimination, and no political justification can change that. > > Meanwhile, I’d like to ask, have the civil rights of any other group ever been handed over to the popular vote for resolution? Isn’t that one of the central philosophies behind the Bill of Rights–the protection of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority”? > > If racial civil rights had been put to a popular vote in the 60s, wouldn’t the outcome have likely been different? > > What gives? > > Rights are rights, not privileges condescendingly bestowed by the good will of the majority. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a set of legal obligations. The state has a vested interest in one man marrying one woman (at a time) and producing children. This is why the state is involved at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=6)