From Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog, this comment on yesterday’s Connecticut Supreme Court decision, with some background from a CT legislator:
In 2007, the legislature’s Judiciary Committee successfully passed a bill to change the name of “civil unions” to “marriage.” That bill came out of the committee on a bipartisan, 27-15 vote. In fact, 25% of all the members of the legislature sit on that committee.
All of Connecticut’s political leaders, Democrat and Republican, have supported equal rights for gays and lesbians. All of our members of Congress support this as well. For example, Chris Shays, our state’s only Republican congressman, has spoken numerous times about his support for full same-sex marriage rights and has said that if he was a member of the state legislature he would vote in its favor.
For nine years, Connecticut’s legislature and courts have been moving along the same path towards full equality for gays and lesbians. It is almost certain that the 2009 session of the legislature will vote to support marriage equality. The Supreme Court said our constitution requires it. The legislature will do it because it is the right thing to do. In Connecticut, this has been a bipartisan effort from the start and I’m sure the next legislature will overwhelmingly endorse today’s ruling.
This is really the trend. I expect both New York and New Jersey to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage next year; California has done so twice (only to have them vetoed by Schwarzenegger, who was waiting for the court’s decision). A constitutional amendment in Massachusetts never got past the legislature, and attempts in Illinois to put a referendum on the ballot have failed twice in a row.
If the laws do pass, and there’s no reason to think they won’t, watch for the Dobson Gang to start fulminating against “elite politicians” ignoring the will of the people — a will only the rabids seem to be privy to, while the people aren’t.
Note this statement by Gov. Jody Rell of Connecticut:
The Supreme Court has spoken. I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision – either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution – will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”
Newspeak? Maybe? The Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t reflect the will of the people, but any attempt to override it through action by the people’s elected representatives will be unsuccessful.
WTF?
[Reprinted from Hunter at Random.]
California has done so twice (only to have them vetoed by Schwarzenegger, who was waiting for the court’s decision)
There is some question of whether Schwarzenegger, if he believed the CA state constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, should have vetoed the bills passed by the legislature. After all,if SSM is guaranteed by the constitution, then the original referendum passed to create a DOMA statute in CA already was unconstitutional at the time of its passage, and the CA Supreme Court should have found it to be so. Even if the CA supreme court failed in its duties, the legislature and executive still were obligated to follow the constitution to the best of their understanding so long as they did not directly conflict with what the CA supreme court said was the meaning of the constitution.
Take massachusetts.
the Supremes ruled that gay marriage is legal.
then, a group of anti-gay-marriage folks proceeded to try to pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal.
interestingly enough, the constitutional amendment was not voted down by the populace of Massachusetts. Rather, the legislature blocked it from ever reaching a popular vote.
It is possible that the “will of the people” as indicated by a popular vote would have supported banning gay marriage. but we never found out for sure. And since gay marriage was arguably not an important part of the legislative platform prior to Goodrich, the thoughts of the people w/r/t gay marriage were arguably not reflected in the legislature.
I was torn when this happened. I support gay marriage, and part of me was glad that the amendment got blocked from a vote–why give the other side any leverage that they don’t have? But I admit to feeling that the legislature was denying the public an opportunity to address an important issue on a popular level.
Sailorman,
interestingly enough, the constitutional amendment was not voted down by the populace of Massachusetts. Rather, the legislature blocked it from ever reaching a popular vote.
Do you believe that every constitutional amendment proposed should go before voters? do you think that when the Mass. constitution was written to include legislative intervention in the amendment process, it might have been for a good reason?
As has been discussed on another thread on this blog, the republican form of government has some advantages over direct democracy, particularly in fostering informed, responsible, accountable debate among decision-makers and slowing the passions of the people. Should the legislators be deemed to have made a very bad decision, they will be ejected at the next election and replaced with people who better represent voters’ preferences.
And since gay marriage was arguably not an important part of the legislative platform prior to Goodrich, the thoughts of the people w/r/t gay marriage were arguably not reflected in the legislature.
Except you just said that the legislature blocked the amendment from reaching a popular vote. How many legislators who opposed the amendment lost their seats at the next election — at which point, presumably, the thoughts of the people w/r/t gay marriage could be reflected?
PG, the author of the post seemed to be confused by the concept that a legislative result could (in theory) fail to reflect the will of the people. So I pointed out a situation, with direct relationship to the post, where that result was possible. Perhaps even probable, if I recall correctly.
That said, you and I don’t seem to engage very well, so forgive me if I decline to respond to the rest of your post.
SM, why can’t the voters of Massachusetts express their will through voting out legislators who don’t vote to amend the MA Constitution? A popular referendum is one way voters can express their will; but it’s not the only legitimate way, especially in a representative democracy.
Regarding “perhaps even probable,” a 2007 poll (reported here) showed that most people in Massachusetts oppose an anti-marriage amendment.
Finally, I think Hunter’s claim is better than you credit it with. Hunter didn’t claim that it could never, ever happen that a legislature opposes the will of the people. As I read it, Hunter is saying it’s a bit silly for the Governor of Connecticut to claim to be powerless to even attempt to try and put “the will of the people” into law, as if the Governor has no power at all and the people have no ability to pressure their legislators at all.
The reason there’s no hope of banning gay marriage in CT isn’t that the Court and the legislature are unelected despots. It’s that there simply isn’t a strong voter consensus against the CT Court’s decision; if anything, most CT voters seem to approve of it.
Don’t you understand that the will of the people is only real when it stems from ignorance? Sure, if you actually show them same-sex marriage they’ll realize it doesn’t threaten civilization and their will starts to change (as happened in Mass.) But the courts should heed the less informed version of the people’s will.
First, you know I’m in favor of gay marriage, right? But I am also in favor (generally speaking) of some sort of popular rule, and sometimes those things conflict in my mind. Now:
They can, in theory. but it’s a long road to hoe. It’s hard to vote out incumbents, and it forces people to be “single issue voters” which is (often) a bad idea.
Representatives involve tradeoffs because they are human. They rarely, if ever, accurately “represent” the wills of their constituents, as they only need to represent a majority of the will of a majority of the constituents (or simply do a good job of trashing their opponents) to stay elected.
Goodrich was 2003, I think. At the time the amendment was proposed, I recall from the news it was much closer. I may be wrong, though; I am going on memory. (In my recollection, it was the possibility of having it be close or negative which led people to oppose it, ironically enough. If there had been very little public support with no chance of passage, it would have been simple enough to take the high road and let it go to a ballot, lose, and be done with it.)
I think that people have much less ability to pressure their legislatures than we really acknowledge. I have dealt with lobbying someone and it is really not a pretty sight. The Governor also is not a legislator; putting things into law is not his job.
Well, that’s great. Gay marriage for all would be a good thing.
Still, it is extraordinarily easy to imagine a situation in which a majority of the population of a state is against gay marriage, but can’t get it through the legislature (electoral college writ small; think Bush 2000). That is simply my point. they don’t need to be unelected despots; they simply need to be legislators who “hold firm to their principles.”
Say you have a local rep who “holds firm to her principles” and who, unfortunately, happens to be prolife. Strongly prolife.
you want to vote her out because you’re prochoice, right? Except that you are also pro-environment (she is too). And nobody great is running against her. And she’s the chair of two important committees related to the environment, which means that she’ll lose those spots if you vote her out.
Let’s even go further and say that your views are representative of a majority of members in her area. Ideally, you and your peers would be able to convince her to change her prolife stance to, you know, “represent” your district. but she won’t.
You could vote her out, but you’d lose the committees and you may prefer her votes overall to those of her competitors. Still, you cannot claim that you are represented in the prolife arena–you’re not.
This is one of the basic problems in our republican system. there are also, of course, a variety of benefits in the system which can balance out those problems. but be that as it may, our republic tends to emphasize stasis over change. Popular referenda serve an important role, insofar as they allow people to make their views crystal clear on a discrete issue, without being forced to sacrifice their views on other issues.
In terms of the court (who are unelected and arguably have despotic power, albeit power assigned by the constitution), well… it has always been my opinion that the degree to which the court is accused of “legislating from the bench” is inversely related to the ease with which people can change the constitution or law in question. As you surely know, it’s actually fairly difficult to change a law (that ‘stasis’ issue again) and it is extraordinarily difficult to change the constitution. [shrug] pros and cons on both sides, but the whole “oh, if you don’t like the decision then just go amend the constitution” argument is a bit silly.
I am especially interested in your viewpoint on this. you have, frequently, opposed what you appear to think is a defunct and problematic two party solution in the US. that said, popular referenda are a great method of attacking the two party lock on power, as they allow people to express a political viewpoint without the requirement to be bound by party allegiance. The People’s Party may have a good name, but it’s a party of compromise just like everything else. if you really want power to the people, then a republic may not be the way to get there.
Just because I’ve seen it so many times lately, I’m going to point out that this is incorrect. The proper saying is, “a long row to hoe.”
Correction here, among other places
All I can say is that your link button sucks. Every time I make a comment using it, sucked into the spam filter never to be seen again.
Anyway, Sailorman, the correct saying is, “a long row to hoe.” We don’t normally use garden implements on our highways.
I only mention this because I’ve seen the mistake multiple times in various places over the last week or two.
What happened in Massachusetts is that in order to amend the Constitution a proposal to do so has to be approved by 1/4 of the Great and General Court (a holdover from the colonial days when the Massachusetts legislature had judiciary functions as well) in two successive sessions. It was approved under Gov. Weld’s last year. When it came up again the supporters of same-sex “marriage” were deathly afraid of permitting the people to voice their will in the matter, so Gov. Deval Patrick did everything he could (including handing out pork and threats) to influence the legislature. It worked. The people never got to vote.
Gov. Weld?
The people get to vote on their legislators. If the constituents of a particular incumbent were upset with his failure to advance the amendment, an opportunistic opponent can pop up at the next election and run on this issue. I’m really not getting where RonF and Sailorman think the line should be drawn about what goes on a ballot. Massachusetts and Connecticut aren’t as referendum-mad as California — that doesn’t make their governmental structure somehow illegitimate.
Yeah, its a little odd. I thought constitutions existed to make certain changes difficult or time-consuming, to filter out some of the fear-mongering and other short-term effects on the public.
And RonF, I know. You’re watching the wrong numbers. By the time it comes to a statewide vote, same-sex marriage in Massachusetts will command a sizable majority (because the other side simply has no argument). Such is our evil plan.
Sailorman —
re: comments 2 and ff.:
Sort of on the run this morning, and I apologize to any who may have made these points already:
In point of fact the Massachusetts constitution specifies that constitutional amendments must be passed by the legislature in two successive sessions. There was an election in between on this one, and yes, same-sex marriage was an issue — how could it not be, with organizations such as MassResistance still operating? Several anti-marriage legislators lost their seats.
I think in this case we can be confident that the will of the people of Massachusetts was accurately reflected.
And didn’t I say something about the anti-marriage side whining about “elite legislators who override the people’s will”? (BTW, I’m still waiting for someone to show me the section of any constitution in this country, state or federal, that stipulates that fundamental rights for any citizen are subject to popular vote.)
The California Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage has in-fact quite appropriately represented the “Will of the People of 2008”. Every poll taken between March 2008 and today has consistently shown the people IN FAVOR of Same-Sex Marriage, and pollsters are predicting Proposition 8, banning same sex marriage to go down in flames on November 4th. Momentum against this hate-filled, bigoted, discriminatory attempt to amend the state’s constitution is growing and the religious zealots will NOT be able to jam their views into law!
In California, the State Legislature has twice passed historic legislation within the past two years supporting same-sex marriage, only to be vetoed by our Republican Governator. And finally, the supreme court has agreed with the legislature — but again, that’s not good enough for the religious zealots.
CA Republicans (no surprise) and the Utah Mormon cash-fueled religious “no-so-right” have waged a campaign of lies, smears and fears; claiming Same-Sex Marriage must be stopped at all costs, and the tenor of their campaign is exhibiting desperation on a daily basis. Thankfully, everyday Californians are rejecting their message, and their views.
These same religious ideologues, claim (perhaps rightfully so) California will set the tone, and as what California does, the nation shall follow. They’ve forgotten (from their own sense of increased importance) that new ideas, trends, and brave new stances often start in the Original 13 Colonies, where Same-Sex Marriage is a “no-brainer” in Massachusetts, now legal in Connecticut, soon to be legal in New York and New Jersey. And with Vermont, being one of the first states to legalize civil unions, has started a wave that is flowing west.
Society remains in tact in Massachusetts, and in-fact, same-sex marriage isn’t even on the top 100 social hot bottons issues of Massachusetts. Residents of that state see it as it is, no big deal, and treat it as such.
Canada, Spain, The Netherlends, Belgium, Norway and South Africa have legalized same-sex marriage and their societies are all flourishing, to the dismay of the religious conservatives in each of their countries.
The proponents of Prop 8, attempting to ban same sex marriage are using God and Children to justify their actions. They regularly quote:
* Leviticus 18:22 which states Homosexuality is an abomination.
But when asked about:
* Exodus 21:7 which supports the sale of your daughter into slavery;
* Exodus 35:2 which condemns to death anyone who works on the Sabbath;
* Leviticus 11:7 anyone touching the skin of a dead pig is “unclean”
— the zealots are unable to reply.
When asking these same people about why the bible authorizes the stoning of your father if he rotates his crops, or the burning of your mother if she wears a garmet with two types of thread, they look like deer, staring into your headlights.
Californian’s are fed up with the “pick-and-choose” bible thumpers and they are fed up with the right-winged zealots attempting to legislate their own morality.
Their campaign has also attempted to demonize a school administrator who organized a parental consented class trip to city hall where some second graders were able (with their parent’s permission) witness their lesbian teacher getting married. The zealots don’t seem to care that the parents gave their consent.
Proposition 8 has become the most expensive state balloted iniative in the history of the United States, where supporters of same-sex marriage has raised $44 million, and the religious zealots attempting to ban same-sex marriage have raised $31 million (half from Utah). No state initiative, in any state, in the history of our country, has been more costly.
If the zealots chose to refocus their effort on children and families, (as they claim they want to protect) with the money they’ve wasted, they could have funded:
* 3,100 playgrounds in low income neighborhoods
* 287,000 school lunches for underserved children for an entire year.
* 2066 children in foster care for an entire year
* 1.7 million needy children could receive a much needed pair of shoes
* 1.25 million flu shots to underserved children
To truly “Protect Marriage” one must vote NO on Prop 8 — a yes vote excludes two million Californians, it tears marriage down, it makes it exclusionary, and sends a message of hatred and intolerance that Californians just do NOT subscribe to.
So you tell me – which side truly believes in ALL children, and ALL their families?