This came out of a conversation about marriage equality that I was involved in on facebook earlier in the week and just haven't had time to post here yet. But there are a couple arguments that I only ever seem to hear myself making, and I don't think they're bad arguments, so I'm trying to spread them around. :)
Part 1 is the political argument. Part 2 will be the religious argument, a post for another day. But here goes:
So, to my mind there are many things flawed about this marriage amendment fiasco (like, when is it ever a good idea to leave civil rights up to the whims of the majority? Seriously, somebody give me a case study from history where that turned out to be a good thing. . .). But perhaps most flawed is its method (says the girl who's been studying methodology for a month).
Because, as previously noted on this blog, gay marriage is already illegal in MN. And the vote before us is a vote to keep gay marriage illegal in MN. By analogy, it's like holding a statewide vote on keeping the common loon as the MN state bird (for those woefully ignorant of all things Minnesotan, the common loon is already the state bird).
If the vote "wins" (more people vote for it than against it) - nothing changes. Gay marriage was illegal before, gay marriage is still illegal after; similarly, the common loon is the state bird before, and the common loon is still the state bird after.
If the vote "fails" (more people vote against it than for it) - still, nothing changes. We won't wake up the next morning and suddenly gay marriage will be legal because a majority voted against keeping it illegal. Just as we wouldn't wake up the next morning and find the common loon is no longer the state bird because a majority voted against keeping it the state bird. Other legislation (or judicial ruling or executive order) would be required to make any change to the status quo.
The whole design of this vote is so flawed. . .
And yes, I have to admit, an entire month spent rejecting or failing to reject null hypotheses helped lead me to this argument. (gulp!) Statistics proved somewhat useful after all.
1 comment:
Another possible way to vote is a non-vote...which counts as a "No" vote. For other things on the ballet, abstaining doesn't count either way. If someone votes for the presidential race, but doesn't bother to flip the page over and find the the constitutional amendment part, they effectively voted no on it. That could be a good thing...lets hope apathetic voters are interested enough in at least one race that they will make it to the polls.
Post a Comment