Wednesday, November 4, 2009

No surprises there

Yep, Prop 1 in Maine succeeded. No surprise there.

The outcome is "further evidence that although voters have shown tolerance toward same sex couples, they draw the line at marriage," said Jeff Flint, a partner with Schubert Flint Public Affairs in Sacramento, who worked on California's "Yes on 8" campaign in 2008.

No, it's further evidence that making it so that voters can overturn acts of the legislature and pass (state) constitutional amendments with a bare majority is a fucking retarded idea. I'm totally down with a voter veto if a supermajority is required -- that could be a useful check against the possibility of a corrupt legislature. But a bare majority? Insanity.

Referendum 71 does look like it's going to pass in Washington State, but that only extends equal benefits, i.e. it's the old separate-but-equal refrain.

Oh well. Have fun being on the wrong side of history, assholes.


  1. yeah, what happened to protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority? sigh. grr.

  2. On constitutional amendments, I'm totally with you. Here in Michigan, with even a minimal supermajority requirement we wouldn't have a ban on SSM in our constitution. I'm less in agreement on overturning mere legislation, though. I'm always willing to allow mere majority rule there, even when I despise the outcome.

    But of course the problem is allowing equality to be up for vote as a statutory issue anyway.

  3. "But of course the problem is allowing equality to be up for vote as a statutory issue anyway."

    Good point. I guess it's just frustrating because it would have been cool for a state to actually do it by act of legislation than by a ruling from the courts. But I guess that's what it has to come down to... In fact, I can't think of a single example of groundbreaking forward progress in civil rights that didn't come from the courts... (I suppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that's all I can think of)