The issue of same-sex marriage has popped up all around the country this past year. Iowans voted to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of allowing same sex-marriage. Last Friday, Maryland passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and New Jersey is currently debating whether the issue should be sent to popular vote.

New Jersey’s consideration for a referendum came from Gov. Chris Christie. His proposal was in response to the state legislative debate on same-sex marriage, which was passed in both houses Friday.

The bill was vetoed, giving New Jersey three options to proceed. Either the state legislature can attempt to gather two-thirds support from both houses to override the veto, the issue can be opened to a referendum and popular vote can decide the issue or the bill will be dead in two years.

A referendum may seem appealing, especially on social issues such as this. However, between all three options, a referendum would be the worst. No matter how you view the issue, it benefits society to have informed representatives debate the issue rather than a popular democratic vote.

Democratic decisions are appealing when your side wins, but popular votes often rely on passion rather than informed debate. For conservatives defending the sanctity of marriage, a popular vote on marriage opens a religious sanction from God to majority rule. If same-sex marriage is supported, then one of the holiest unions is begrimed.

If you consider yourself a liberal, then civil liberties and equal protection are part of the issue in same-sex marriage. If the bill is denied, as a liberal, it becomes the majority denying the rights of a minority. In either situation, no matter what your personal preferences happen to be, democratic vote is a poor method for making important decisions such as this.

We elect our representatives to determine matters of civil liberties, public morality and public concerns. As individuals we are busy with family, work, church and everything else that consumes our time. As constituents, we compose our representatives, they share our thoughts and concerns, but unlike us, their job depends on taking the time to debate and find information we’re too busy to do.

Trust in public officers is critical. They share our concerns, debate on our behalf and we do not have the same amount of accurate and complete information as they do. As long as their decision is constitutional, informed and considered, we should respect it. If we disagree, we can always vote them out. However, as long as they’re in office, we should respect why they’re there.