thomascwaters.com

This is an article first published last year, and written by John Micek of the Morning Call. Published here with permission.

Have attitudes changed here about same-sex marriage?

Explain It to me!

May 06, 2009| By John Micek Of The Morning Call

Q. Are attitudes changing about same-sex marriage? The hot-button issue that was once front and center in the Culture Wars recently has been in the headlines. Iowa and New Hampshire have sanctioned same-sex unions, and legislation is moving in New York and Maine. How do people feel about that now?

A: Pennsylvania law bans same-sex marriage, and foes have made repeated attempts to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.

But a recent Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll shows that public attitudes statewide are softening on the controversial issue.

Fifty one percent of Pennsylvania residents oppose granting same-sex couples who marry the same rights as traditional marriages, down from 54 percent in a 2004 Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll.

More people today (42 percent) say gay marriage should be recognized, up from 35 percent who said that in 2004.

Similarly, public support for civil unions has increased from 54 percent five years ago to 61 percent in 2009.

“In many ways, gay rights issues remain highly polarizing in Pennsylvania,” Muhlenberg pollster Christopher Borick said. “But, when you look over time, you see a gradual acceptance of both civil unions and gay marriage.”

Residents remain divided on whether to amend the state Constitution to outlaw gay and lesbian marriage. Forty-five percent oppose such an amendment, 44 percent support it, a statistically insignificant difference.

Despite the ambiguity, Pennsylvanians are united on one thing: Same-sex marriage isn’t a campaign issue. Six in 10 respondents said a candidate’s stance on the issue would not determine whether they support the candidate, compared to 34 percent who said it did.

The Morning Call/Muhlenberg canvass of 446 adults was conducted from March 9 to March 31. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

– John L. Micek, Call Harrisburg Bureau

It appears that the PA Senate Judiciary Committee will be taking up John Eichelberger’s SB 707 which would amend the PA constitution, writing discrimination into it. The bill would essentially change nothing except that the ban on same-sex marriage would be built directly into the constitution. The language of the bill would define marriage as between one man and one woman. Backers of the legislation believe that this will make it harder to overturn in the courts, but this really isn’t the case. There are states that have had a constitutional ban, and it has been found as unconstitutional just as easily as a simple law of the state.

The real motivation however, is simply to make LGBT people feel unwelcome and unwanted in Pennsylvania by pushing a religiously motivated position forward. Twice before conservatives have placed this issue before the Legislature, and twice before it has been defeated. If we are to defeat it again, we will need your help!

At this point, the single most important thing you can do is mail (as in the good old postal mail) a short letter to each member of the Judiciary committee asking them to vote against this bill so that it is not introduced to the full Senate. Links to each member of the committee is below. Because the vote may be next week, it is imperative to do this TODAY!  You may send the same letter to everyone on the committee, but it is important that it isn’t just a form letter that all you did was sign. Take 10 minutes, and draft 250- 500 words explaining why you do not want to see this discrimination added to the state’s constitution. It is useful to say something about how this will impact you and your loved ones.

The time and money invested to write a short letter, get some stamps and mail these today can make the difference between this bill progressing further or being killed in committee. This is worth it!

Senators are much like you. They receive a ton of junk mail and form letters, and even their staff doesn’t have time to read everything. But a personal letter with your real signature on it is something that will definitely be read directly by the senator. I have been told that a senator that receives as few as 4 or 5 handwritten letters sees this as a reason to consider the request, where as receiving a thousand emails won’t.

Ask your friends, neighbors and loved ones to do the same. Have a letter-writing party this evening!

If you write a letter, and feel free sharing it, post it here to the blog as a comment. This can encourage and remind others to write their letters.

Members of the committee:Officers

Greenleaf, Stewart J. , Chair

White, Mary Jo, Vice Chair

Leach, Daylin , Minority Chair

Scarnati, Joseph B., III, ex-officio

Majority

Browne, Patrick M.

Earll, Jane M.

Gordner, John R.

Orie, Jane Clare

Piccola, Jeffrey E.

Rafferty, John C., Jr.

The linked post is from the blog, Open Left, and describes some really good news in the battle for Marriage Equality. While we in Pennsylvania are looking to see what our State Senate is going to do with SB 707, our neighbor to the south, West Virginia has again killed a bill that would have added discrimination into the state constitution. Time will tell if the PA Senate will be as enlightened as our neighbors.

So, who is really winning in the battle over marriage?

• This week, the West Virginia House of Delegates voted to kill a effort to put a statewide constitutional amendment on the ballot by a vote of 68-30.
• The Attorney General of Maryland has determined that Maryland will recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
• Washington DC permits same-sex marriages within the district, and recognizes marriages performed in other states.

Incidents such as these suggest that we are making real progress when it comes to Marriage Equality. Yet, groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) which should be named, the National Organization against Gays and Lesbians, tell a different story. They point out that in every state where same-sex marriage has been put to a vote by the people, same-sex marriage has been defeated. They suggest this proves that the American people do not support or approve of same-sex marriage. So, which is it- the country is moving forward towards same-sex marriage, or it isn’t?

The Wrong Question

That may be a worthwhile question, but it may also be a hard one to answer. Marriage Equality advocates ignore it, or only point to the wins for our side, or  use any defeats to elevate themselves to victim status. But I think it is the wrong question to get concerned about. Marriage equality is essentially connected to a broader issue: the acceptance of gays and lesbians. When gays and lesbians are more fully accepted, and seen as “just like straight people,” then the right to civil marriage will be a no brainer for everyone. Gay marriage fails at the ballot box, because opponents are still able to paint gays and lesbians as monsters (at the worst of it) or at the very least, evoke high levels of fear among the majority of voters. The questions revolve around some sense of “is homosexuality acceptable,” and when a voter is either not sure, or is negative about homosexuality, we lose, and groups like NOM have accomplished their goal.

Framing the Question

So, on a different question, “who is winning the question of how the issue gets framed in the minds of voters.” it is clear the anti-equality folks are winning, and one reason for that is their focus on “the homosexual” as compared to our focus on being gays and lesbians who deserve equal rights. We are not only losing on this one, we aren’t really even on the board as a player! The GLBTQ community does little to counteract or confront this oppressive tactic of painting us as “homosexuals” and not referring to us as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Yes, it is a clear and intentional strategy employed against equality. And it is working!

In a recent survey, when polled asking about homosexuals in the military, the majority of respondents were opposed, but when asked about allowing gays, and lesbians to serve the results were vastly different. This framing of the issue as being about “the homosexuals” as opposed to be about gays and lesbians, is an aspect of the struggle where not enough energy or focus has been placed, and it adds to the inability to move this movement further. As it stands, there are two sides who are speaking past each other. One reason for this is that most of us (gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders) don’t think of ourselves as homosexuals, and we treat that as old-fashioned language. But if we continue to fail to recognize how and why that language is so potent, we will continue to fail on this part of the struggle.

In One Word, What Are We?

There is another problem with this language thing. As a collective, we are a set of communities that we label with a various combinations of the pink alphabet soup. LGBT, GLBT, LGBTQ, are just a few examples, and sometimes the letters, “I” and “A” are also included- maybe a few others too. But marriage equality doesn’t touch all of these various parts of our diverse communities. So, are we working for LGBT civil rights when we seek marriage equality, or are we seeking rights for some while leaving transgenders and bisexuals with nothing? Another reason why the term “homosexual” has plays a role in the discourse, is that it allows the bigger issue of marriage as a civil right (and for whom) to go undiscussed. When we (in the LGBT community) operate from a victim stance (we have been wronged and treated as second class citizens), we need to speak with one voice and appear as one unified group. but we have no good way to identify as a single group past the pink alphabet soup. The term, “homosexual,” by default sets up the dichotomy of straight people, and everyone else, who the opposition mislabels as homosexual. While we know it is a mislabel, some don’t get too caught up in fighting it, because it implies a unified we, with that being those who are not straight.

While marriage equality is important and will help a huge number of people, it is also played a role in stripping apart the little cohesion that the LGBTQI-whatever-letters-you-want-or-don’t-want. We are so focused on marriage while transgenders still lack basic protections in housing and public accommodations, even in some states where gays and lesbians can marry.

This doesn’t make marriage equality or the people working for it bad or discriminatory. It does mean that broader dialogue about who we are as a collective of communities and how together we can work for civil rights for all the various parts of our diverse coalition is needed.

Some would say that if we gain marriage equality, but further marginalize trans women and men we haven’t accomplished much. Others will say that they are all steps forward to greater equality, and the struggle continues. Who is winning depends entirely on what question you are considering, and what terms you are using to define the various players in the struggle.

Equality Will Prevail

There are few better indicators that marriage equality can prevail, than the aggressive efforts of our opposition. They are working so hard to kill equality precisely because they know how close we are to achieving it, and as we make gains on any level, the battle will only intensify. but will it be a year? 10 Years? or 50 years till we see full equality? That answer may be more connected to which other questions we are asking? If our focus is on if we are winning for marriage, I believe we will slow the process. Or, if we lack a sense of urgency because equality seems inevitable, we will not see it in our lifetime. If on the other hand, we remember that marriage is one facet of the greater push for civil rights for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgenders, we can truly see progress for all. If we act with a sense of urgency, and persistence, being treated as first-class citizens will be just around the corner so to speak.

I’m interested in your thoughts, so leave a comment!

via Open Left:: Two good pieces of news on marriage equality.

The linked article is about the mayor of Turin Italy who performed a symbolic wedding ceremony for two lesbians. My first thought when I read it, was how big this was given the control of the Vatican in Italy. But another aspect of it then settled into my head.

Here in the US, a few strategies have been tried when it comes to selling same-sex marriage. One of these, is to focus on the “civil” part of civil marriage. Same-sex couples who already live in committed relationships,  but they are denied the 1400+ rights and privileges that straight couples take for granted. In other words, it is a simple issue of equality and being treated the same as others. Another strategy has been to focus on the fact that gay families do already exist, and are all around us. Ads such as those used in the Maine battle showed same-sex families- they brought a real human face to the issue.

I have for the most part, focused on the first. It is logical, and non-confrontational. I have felt that it is also the best argument when trying to battle the religious fanatics because it has nothing to do with moral judgement. I have believed that the second strategy is as important, if not more important, but promoting the message, “our families are just like your families” has never really sat well with me. How I am alike a straight person is not why I deserve to be treated equal. My similarity or difference is not the deciding factor. All americans deserve to be treated equally. Period.

But another side of this issue is every bit as real as these, and one I have known, but haven’t really addressed, and it is this one that has all the religious crazies in such a tizzy. Getting married is a way that humans validate their commitment to each other, and set the stage for building a life together. The CEREMONY of it, including all the ritual and hoopla is important and meaningful and these things are every bit as valuable as the 1400+ rights that follow.

I have written quite a bit about the gender role basis of Christian opposition to gay marriage: God the Father and Son; the dutiful virgin mother; the church understood as Christ’s bride; even Adam and Eve. So much of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy relies upon gender roles and a male dominated power system. Same-sex marriage defies those gender and power dynamics and threatens the very nature of the Church’s (as institution) control of our lives.

The ceremony of marriage itself, spare and minimal expressed as a set of questions before a Justice of the Peace, or elaborately expressed through a series of rituals and vows called a Wedding, does something essential, by bonding two individuals together  within a community to be something that didn’t already exist. To be a family.

In some regard our oppressors are correct- same-sex marriage is a redefinition of family. Where they are wrong however is in suggesting that without same-sex marriage , family only means what they claim it does. Family has been redefined by many for a very long time. We are just giving voice to that reality. They are also wrong when they suggest that a redefinition of family will invalidate the meaning and value of their own marriages. The success or failure of straight marriages  is based entirely on the individuals within them, and not on some rule about what is supposed to be. This is why the “sanctity of marriage” argument is so laughable. Even if there was never a gay or lesbian couple who wanted to marry, it isn’t hard to look around and see the institution of marriage crumbling – families destroyed by lies, selfishness, betrayal,all that goes with these behaviors.

The creation of family happens regardless of the gender of the participants. Straight couples and gay couples, and the strength of those commitments over time are not dependent on the gender differences of the two participants. Doesn’t every family deserve the right to begin with a ceremony?

My partner and I have been together for 12 years, but we are not married in the legal sense. If one day we get married, it won’t be the ceremony itself that defines us as a family. It has been 12 years of work that has done that. The strength of our commitment to each other, and how that bond has been strengthened  or tested through the bad as well as the good times. We have not had a perfect relationship. But there is no doubt that it has been a strong, meaningful, and enduring relationship.

I remember as a young man just coming out as gay, reading that I would never be happy. The straight powers that be, have tried to define who we are as gays and lesbians, and tried to tell us what is and isn’t acceptable. Yet, they have been utterly wrong at every turn.  I have had a full , happy and amazing life that I wouldn’t trade for anything! For gays and lesbians, demanding same-sex marriage is one more step in the process of gays and lesbians defining themselves instead of allowing others to define us. For our culture around us, allowing same-sex marriage is simply an act of acknowledging what already exists- that family already means more than what a rigid gender-role definition suggests.

Turin, Italy Mayor ‘Marries’ Lesbian Couple in Symbolic Ceremony – Towleroad, More than gay news. More gay men.

I received an email today from Dana Elmendorf, a Pittsburgh activist who has been very active for some time in issue advocacy. Not only is she a wealth of knowledge about advocacy work, but she has been at it for some time, and this history gives her a unique perspective. She was commenting on a letter she had received back from PA Senator Costa concerning PA SB 707. She wrote:

I am acutely aware of the work that was done with Senator Costa over the last four years.  Personal meetings and outreach happened with him and clearly that is now paying off.  There is, at times, a sense of impatience with advocacy work by the general community.  Change is like throwing stones in a pond.  A ripple starts and one thing leads to another.  Senator Costa’s clear support of our community is an example of that.

Many of us may get involved in advocacy work because of a specific situation or event. Like the November 2008 election where Obama won, and Prop 8 passed in California. These two votes happening at the same time galvanized a new generation of gays and lesbians to get involved in the political process and want to fight for equality. For me, the event was the 1987 March on Washington and seeing the AIDS Quilt display there. But as Dana suggests, change comes during the reverberations of events and situations, the ripples as it were, and it is seen over time.

Last week, Daylin Leach, the PA Senator who sponsored a Marriage Equality bill in the PA Senate (SB 935) was a guest speaker for the GLEC meeting here in Pittsburgh. We brought him in via conference call, and he stressed developing relationships with your elected officials. That translates into what Dana was referring to as “outreach over the past four years.”

We may start that relationship with a personal letter to our elected official, and follow it with phone calls, and then meeting with him or her. And over time, we keep contact. I don’t know here Senator Cost was 4 years ago, on issues of equality, but I know where he is today because of that ongoing contact- not by just one constituent, but by a number of folks.

I also received this in an email message from a someone who had attended the GLEC meeting:

This ia a new thing for me, I’m almost ashamed to say, but everything in its own time, I guess. But I do feel the time is now to be actively interested and attentive politically.

It is never too early to start this relationship if there is a specific issue or bill that is important to you and others. But real change isn’t about one legislative bill or one issue. So, it is never too late to get involved in issue advocacy work if real equality is important to you. We need to find a balance in a pursiut of urgency for individual parts of the whole and endurance as we seek the whole of equality.

For me, PA SB 707 is at the top of my list of issues, followed closely by PA HB  300. At the top of the blog are buttons that lead to pages with info of what you can do about these important issues.

I want to close this with another quote from Dana, which sums it all up:

I want people to know that advocacy work happens by everyday people just doing everyday things like having a conversation.

The link below is to a DCAgenda article by Lou Chibbaro:

The D.C. Court of Appeals Friday denied a request by a Maryland minister for an injunction to block the city’s same-sex marriage law from taking effect March 3, ending the last potential obstacle to the start of gay nuptials the following week.

Most interesting to me was this snippet from the Judges’ ruling:

The three-judge appeals court panel also held that Jackson and others who have joined him in requesting the injunction failed to show that allowing the marriage law to take effect would cause them “irreparable harm.”

This is important as one of the primary arguments used against gay marriage is that it will cause irreparable harm to others by destroying the family. A claim that is laughable, but one still capable of evoking fear at the ballot box.

via Last hurdle removed to start of D.C. same-sex marriages | DC Agenda.

A few years ago, I was in Philadelphia and went to the Betsy Ross House, and it made the entire trip to Philadelphia for me! I had always thought about Betsy Ross and the flag as a quaint little story, but seeing the house and learning about her and her life gave me a context to see her (as well as other patriots) with new eyes, and I gained an appreciation for her as well as felt a link to her. This is from a web biography of Betsy Ross:

Elizabeth Griscom — also called Betsy, their eighth child and a fourth-generation American, was born on January 1, 1752.

Betsy went to a Friends (Quaker) public school. For eight hours a day she was taught reading, writing, and received instruction in a trade — probably sewing. After completing her schooling, Betsy’s father apprenticed her to a local upholsterer. Today we think of upholsterers primarily as sofa-makers and such, but in colonial times they performed all manner of sewing jobs, including flag-making. It was at her job that Betsy fell in love with another apprentice, John Ross, who was the son of an Episcopal assistant rector at Christ Church.

Quakers frowned on inter-denominational marriages. The penalty for such unions was severe — the guilty party being “read out” of the Quaker meeting house. Getting “read out” meant being cut off emotionally and economically from both family and meeting house. One’s entire history and community would be instantly dissolved. On a November night in 1773, 21-year-old Betsy eloped with John Ross. They ferried across the Delaware River to Hugg’s Tavern and were married in New Jersey. Her wedding caused an irrevocable split from her family.

I’m sure it is not a stretch for many gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgenders to relate to her experience. Many of us have been cast off by our own families because who we are as people- seems to be at odds with our family’s religious beliefs, and many of us feel this pain deeply. However, how arcane does Betsy’s situation seem today? Today, two people of different faith backgrounds, especially both Christian easily get married. But Gays and Lesbians?  Not so much. For us, the use of religious prejudice and discrimination still apply.

Pennsylvania is currently looking to embed religious bigotry and discrimination into our state’s constitution with SB 707. This has been tried twice before, but both times it has been defeated. Still the radical religious right persists, and is again wasting time and tax dollars to again attempt this change to the constitution.

For me, PA SB 707, the Marriage Protection Amendment, isn’t about marriage equality, but rather it is about a deeper and more important question: will we as Pennsylvanian’s allow discrimination to be embraced by adding it to the constitution? Proponents of the amendment claim that the goal is to protect the family, but the family is not at risk in Pennsylvania at this time nor in the foreseeable future.  So, why now? Why are some pushing so hard on a piece of legislation that won’t change daily life in Pennsylvania?

If the future of our state is important to you, then I urge you to oppose PA SB 707, and demand that our legislators devote their time, and energy, and our resources to solving our state’s issues such as jobs and unemployment, energy, education, public safety, and the environment.

Ken O’Neil’s blog “The Marrying Kind” is linked below, and it is a good read! Check it out. He tells the story of a marriage equality rally in New York. I’d quote a part of it here, except that it is such a great read, I don’t want to mess it up. So read it.

But there is a point for me. Maybe Ken would or wouldn’t agree, I don’t know. But this really isn’t about getting married, even if that is the tangible circumstances at the moment. The Equality movement is about fairness and about being treated like everyone else. OK, I’m going to pull a quote out of Ken’s blog:

Then a gay man and a lesbian came and talked to us. They told us they had just received a marriage license. Even though, they don’t love each other, or even know each other very well. They had previously tried to get licenses with the people they actually love. But since the great loves of their lives were of the same gender, they were denied.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer people deserve to be treated the same as everyone else in all civil matters. Period.

Ken claims he isn’t an activist, a claim that could be disputed. But taking him at his word, this too is an important point. We don’t need more activists- we need more women and men to be like Ken and get engaged, no matter if they see themselves as activists or not. We need women and men who are gay, straight, bi, trans to stop allowing themselves and others to be treated unfairly. You don’t want to become an activist? Then don’t. But be like Ken.

For Ken, it was about showing up. What will it be for you?

The Marrying Kind: I Am Not Now, Nor Have I Ever Been.

Pennsylvania has joined the growing list of states where same-sex marriage is front and center at the moment. Unlike Iowa, or Washington DC, it is not because PA may soon allow marriage equality- just the opposite. A Pennsylvania Senator has introduced a joint resolution, SB 707, which would amend the PA constitution to describe marriage as between one man and one woman, thus writing discrimination against same-sex couples into the PA constitution.

Background posts on this subject:

• Writing Discrimination Into the PA Constitution
• PA SB 707: Anti-gay marriage legislation
• http://www.nowpublic.com/world/pa-may-amend-state-constitution-ban-gay-marriage

What You Can Do About PA SB 707

There are three good ways to contact your senator: by phone, by personal letter, or by meeting with him or her in person. Ideally, please do all three and encourage others to do the same.  Today, I want to focus on phone calls and letter writing.

Why not email?

The far right who are really pushing to get this through the Senate are bombarding the senators with tons of mass emails. These have an impact: they tend to scare senators, but to really educate and get senators on our side, we need to contact them in a way that can make a real difference. If a senator receives as few as 3 or 4 real letters (not form letters, they truly take notice, and if we can get a dozen of letters to them*, it can be enough to change their vote! So, please don’t just send an email, it can get lost in the shuffle of the blast email responses.

What do I say or write?

In the past, we have found that telling our stories can do the most good. The opposition portrays us in a horrible way. When we tell our real stories, about our lives and our families, legislators learn to separate fact from fiction. So white about who you are, and why SB 707  would be harmful to you, your family, your future, and for Pennsylvania. Send a snapshot of your family if you want. Make it personal. Demonstrate that this action impacts real lives.

Don’t be abusive, or bullying. Even if this legislation makes you angry, speak from a place of civility and honesty and not anger, or confrontation. This is especially important if you are contacting a senator who supports this legislation! Consider if the shoes were on the other feet: how would you like to be talked to? Would being called stupid or an idiot or threatened make you change your mind or open your mind to a different perspective? Probably not. So, stick with the facts about the legislation, and to your story.

If you feel rage-full or angry and need to swear at someone, do that- but not to your elected official. Get it out of your system, and then call or write or visit your elected official.

Common courtesy can go a long way! Like your parents might have taught you, sentiments like, “please”, “thank-you”, and “sincerely” can take you very far.

You do not have to write a whole thesis! A short simple letter, or call that shares your story, and how this will impact you will do more good than writing a small book that covers every possible point of debate on this issue.

Don’t make assumptions or act as if every legislator is opposed to equal rights!

Support for or against SB 707 does not fall perfectly along party lines. For example, I have heard there are republicans who are opposed  to SB 707! So allow your phone call or letter to be about why you want a legislator to oppose SB 707.

How do I contact my state senators?

The ACLU PA has a web tool that allows you to find your legislators and their contact information. If you need further assistance, or have questions you can email me for help! Another good tool is on the PA General Assembly web page.

What do I do after I’ve called or sent my letter?

I want to encourage you again, to do both call, and send a letter, but no matter if you do one or both, let someone know about it. The activists and organizations who are working in Harrisburg are strengthened, when they are aware of communications with various legislators. If you are comfortable doing so, post a comment to this blog entry, or post your letter. Or send a copy of it to the ACLU. Contact me for more information about this.

PA SB 707  is unnecessary, wasteful, hurtful, counter=productive and places discrimination into the PA constitution. It could happen unless we take action and speak loudly with one voice calling for fair and nondiscriminatory treatment for all Pennsylvanians.

This is an interesting article about Washington DC ad a poll on some of the hot topic items like gay marriage, and I’d encourage you to read it.

A Washington Post poll conducted last month finds majorities favor same-sex marriage, want medical marijuana to be legalized and support the creation of an elected attorney general.

Nearly six in 10 residents say they would prefer to vote on the issue. City leaders have said a public vote would be discriminatory. “I don’t think it should be a decree made by the government,” said Pablo Barreyro, 72, of Chevy Chase. “I don’t think it should be left to a small party of politicians. . . . I really wonder what the outcome would be if it becomes available for public input.”

The point of the article may be to talk about the progressive atitudes of DC, but there is a different point I want to focus on today.

It is easy to say that individual’s rights should not be put up for a vote, but past saying it (it is a catchy phrase) what does that really mean? No matter if it is a direct vote, like a ballot initiative, or not, the people do vote. They vote to elect council members, representatives, senators, governors, and even some judges. So, why do we work hard to keep gay marriage, or other gay rights off of a ballot for a direct vote? Because not only is there the issue of getting it passed, there is also a second but connected issue of combating and fighting the lies, and misinformation. And everyone knows this happens!

The 60% who want to see this put to a public vote demonstrates that in general, the public has no faith in their elected officials to do what is in the best interest of the people. Even if, the people agree with the positions of their elected officials, they still don’t trust them. This is enormously important!

From a theoretical perspective, we can wonder if a representative democracy is dying. That is an interesting question, but there is an urgency that pure theory does not accommodate. And any move towards a democracy where everything, including other’s rights are voted upon by the public at large, will mean the death of any real progress for America. As we already slip behind other countries across the globe in other ways, we will sink further and further behind.

So, the solution is for individuals to get more involved during the 363 days a year that the voting booth is closed. By engaging their elected officials through phone calls, personally written letters (not form letters) and meetings with their elected officials or their staff. These people work for us! We have to be able to trust them to make and pass legislation that benefits  us all as a whole, so the way to accomplish that is by getting more engaged with them.

Majorities polled in D.C. back gay marriage, medical marijuana – washingtonpost.com.