So says Wisconsin state senator Scott Fitzgerald, defending his resolution that would put the question of gay marriage to a statewide vote. The resolution to amend the constitution passed the senate yesterday, with every Republican voting for it and every Democrat voting against it. It's expected to pass the assembly easily, so
Governor Doyle will make the final call as to whether gay marriage will be on the ballot next fall... when Governor Doyle [who vetoed a gay marriage bill in 2003] will himself be on the ballot.
And so, the political game is played.
CORRECTION: Sorry, Doyle has no role this time, as the article makes clear:
Legislators launched the drive to amend the state constitution after Doyle vetoed a bill in 2003 that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. Unlike regular bills, the governor does not have a say on constitutional amendments.
Posts
10 comments:
It's only "difficult" for people who have never read the Fourteenth Amendment, or who are so consumed by bigotry as to feel a primal urge to constitutionalize it.
Or for opportunist hack politicians.
You can see how shallow the Senator's reasoning is by replacing the phrase marriage with other phrases, such as "interracial marriage" "freedom of the press", "lynching".
Kipesquire, I'm a supporter of gay marriage and I'm not convinced that it's a 14th Amendment case. The idea that there is a clear right for gay marriage is obviously in dispute. Instead of kneejerk accusal of bigotry to anyone who would dare disagree with you let me suggest a different tack. Calmly convince people that gay marriage would be a good thing. Don't accuse your opponents of being driven by hatred. Certainly they think that their agruments have validity. Explain why their fears are unfounded. America (and Wisconsin) is filled with good people. Talk to them and they'll listen.
The senator is right...the voters have the right to decide this and many other issues. If it's being used as an election tool too, so be it.
In Pennsylvania, they schedule billion dollar referendums for off-year low-voter interest primary elections when fewer than 12-15% of the eligible voters vote. That's the legislature's "election tool" so they can say the voters "approved" the spending. I am sure other states do the same.
Ann, don't you mean:
"And so, a democracy functions." ?
I agree with the people who have said that it becomes a situation similar to what existed in the Jim Crow days if you leave it to the voters. The voters in those days, if asked to vote on segregation, would certainly have supported it (and they did, in terms of always electing segregationist governors). Even if blacks were allowed to vote in those elections, the likelihood is that segregation still would have won, by a wide margin.
While we are at it, the Nazis, running on an openly anti-Semitic platform, won a majority of seats in the Reichstag in 1932 (the last free election in the Weimar Republic).
Just because something is popular, doesn't make it right. And you can certainly win a majority by appealing to outright bigotry on the part of the majority against a minority (be it Jews, blacks, gays or the new (old) group that demogogue politicians want to villify-- immigrants) but that in itself is an argument against direct referendum.
To those who think this is a cop-out on the part of legislators, the article makes clear:
The measure must be approved by both houses of the Legislature in two consecutive sessions before being put to voters in a statewide referendum.
You can debate gay marriage and whether the issue merits revising the Constitution, but this is not California-style government by plebiscite. Wisconsin seems to have a sober, reasoned process in place.
Personally, I think the law goes too far in denying the possibility of even civil unions. But comparisons to Nazism are not very helpful or honest here. Eli does win an indirect Godwin, though.
I think that this whole effort to get the marriage amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage, but the reason the WI GOP legisaltors are pushing this is to get this on the ballot during a Nov. election when there are races for gov, congress, etc. Motivate more socially conservative people to get out and vote. The pro-gay dems already vote anyway.
Bodie,
Fair enough. I also don't like legislators effectively saying, "I don't have an opinion and I can't do anything because it's what the people want."
I don't know if there's been any substantive debate in Wisconsin, but this is a rather involved process over two legislative sessions, after which the people vote. It seems like there's ample time for discussion. It would be better if this weren't going along strict party lines, but everything's become so politicized, what are the odds of that?
I would rather hear a legislator state their position on an issue along with the reasoning behind it, even if I disagree with the position and/or the reasoning.
Well put, and I agree. But again, what are the odds of politicians doing that? My guess is that some Republicans don't really want to amend the Constitution but feel it's what people want. And some think it's a good idea but can't articulate why. Still others recognize that they'll be vilified as homophobes if they open up a discussion, but they all use popular support as political cover.
The commonly understood meaning of the institution of marriage is that it is a unique relationship between one man and one woman. This is the definition that is reflected in American law and it is based on a long-held understanding of the essential role that the traditional institution of marriage plays "...in the civilization of a people." (For all you attorneys out there, take a look at Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 208, 210-13(1888).)
In a democracy, if the traditional definition and understanding of marriage is to be changed so as to encompass addiltional relationships, who has the authority to make this change? Are judges to decide or should a question of this magnitude be answered through the democratic process?
Post a Comment