Opposing measures by two Pennyslvania state Senators on same-sex marriage: Part 2: Senator Daylin Leach on "Putting Marriage To A Vote"

Senator Daylin Leach represents the 17th district in eastern Pennsylvania. He is the first state legislator in Pennsylvania to introduce marriage-equality legislation (SB 935). It is uncertain, if not unlikely, that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up his legislation. But the obstacles do not deter him. He has unwavering resolve to advance what he considers a fundamental civil rights issue. At a rally last week, he told supporters that he has "fought long and hard to secure the same rights (for) same-sex couples that are offered to married men and women." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

Yesterday I began this series by reviewing a debate on same-sex marriage between Senator Leach and his colleague, Senator John Eichelberger. Senator Eichelberger represents the 30th district in western Pennsylvania. He wants to give Pennsylvania voters opportunity to approve a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (SB 707).

Senator Eichelberger has agreed to favor this site with a statement of his reasons for (SB 707), and I look forward to his future contribution. In this post, I am pleased to present comments by Senator Leach. He has revised comments he initially prepared not long after voters in Maine reversed the state's marriage-equality law by approving Question 1. Of course, his comments have bearing on Eichelberger's goal to "let voters decide" whether same-sex couples may marry.

Senator Daylin Leach: Putting Marriage To A Vote

When you follow politics closely, every election night comes with its exhilarating wins and heartbreaking losses. Some years there are more of one than the other, but every year is, to some extent, a mixed bag. Last year, the toughest loss for me to watch was the decision by the voters of Maine to (albeit narrowly) overturn by referendum the legislature's legalization of same-sex marriage.

As a strong supporter of same sex marriage, I was naturally disappointed with the outcome of the election. As I watched the final results came in, however I found myself feeling disquiet beyond that usually elicited by being on the short end of a vote. Something seemed fundamentally wrong to me about the process itself.

At first I thought that my unease was caused by my general antipathy towards government by referendum. I believe we should elect people whose judgment we trust and assign to them the full-time task of studying issues, going to hearings, meeting with stakeholders, participating in debates and coming to the best solution. This seems to me far preferable to distilling complex issues down to one line on a ballot, to be decided in a moment, with no study, by people who often came to vote for things completely unrelated to that issue.

Referendum also makes one of the most important legislative functions, compromise, impossible. If I see a ballot initiative asking if I want to spend $10 million on education, I may think that's too high. But I could support an additional $5 million. In the legislative process, that lower, more reasonable figure might actually be the final product. In a referendum, it's all or nothing, guaranteeing extreme results that up to 49% of the population never buy into.

Finally, voters don't have to square the circle. For example, in states with referendum provisions, voters routinely vote to both cut their taxes and increase spending on services they like on the same day. Unlike the legislature, voters don't have to make it all add up, which can lead to budgetary disaster.

Yet, as I thought it through, I found my concerns went deeper. There is something profoundly wrong about putting the basic human rights of a minority up to a vote of the majority. Rights are rights, whether or not the majority agrees with them. And while there may be an argument (a weak one, as I've explained) for voting on a given tax, or whether to build a highway, individual rights belong to the individual, not 51% of the community.

For instance, should we put what God you can pray to up to a vote? How about whether or not a person has the right to advocate a certain position on an issue, or whether or not they have a right to remain silent if arrested? Maybe we could vote on what books can be read, or whether married couples can use contraception? Obviously, most of us would recoil from such suggestions.

We can examine recent history to see how such votes might go: fifty years ago, if we had put desegregating public schools up to a vote in the South - or much of the North for that matter - would it have passed? How about allowing African Americans to drink out of Whites-Only water-fountains? Even in the context of marriage, at one time, a vote on whether one could marry outside their race would have lost overwhelmingly in much of the country. In some places, it might still lose today.

So what troubles me is that it seems incongruent, and frankly, a little icky to have majorities decide whether a minority is entitled to their human rights. It would, in concept, be like having white people vote on whether black people could sit in the front of the bus, or having Christians vote on whether Muslims can pray publicly. I'd like to think that - in this day and age - those votes would go well.. Even so, it still wouldn't feel like the right thing to do.

It is estimated that 3% of Mainers are gay. Therefore, 97% of the people, whose own lives are utterly unaffected by the status of same-sex marriage, got to give thumbs up or thumbs down on someone else's marriage. Marriage was called by the United States Supreme Court "fundamental to our very existence." Yet gay people are denied the right to marry because a slim majority of straight people don't feel like giving it to them. That process, more than the result, should make all of us, and our spouses, lose some sleep tonight.