No Comment
The best comment over New York’s recognition of same-sex marriage is no comment. Since we have finally reached the point where an important social change can happen by legislation instead of the non-democratic interventions of the courts, the problem is finally being solved in a way that is both legitimate and stable and, unlike the abortion battle, much less prone to degenerating into decades of intractable political warfare.
Thank you, New York.
Share This
I would have preferred a referendum for voters.
Well, if every change in the law is only legitimate with a referendum, I don’t know why the Founders put so much emphasis on legislatures.
I would disagree with it being stable. Legitimate, perhaps — the older states including New York probably never will get (what the capital-P Progressives among other early liberals and populists had wanted and got in other parts of the country) the initiative, referendum, and recall. But gay marriage is controversial, highly so if it is heavily politicized, far from getting unquestioned support (though it appears to be growing year by year), and though New York is a hopelessly-behind old Blue state, it still is possible that the law could be changed to the previous state someday, and certainly in other, livelier states, that’s possible (as well as gay marriage still being more vigorously contested than in New York).
At least it’s properly being done in the state(s), not in Washington.
Interestingly, more than once I’ve encountered a desire expressed for a referendum to be needed, not just sought, for something as controversial as gay marriage: any decision of the US to go to war.
Ah, the old Founders position. I think we are a little more technologically advanced then 1776, so as important a social issue as this could get voter approval. This is not “every change in the law”.
Also, California had Proposition 8. It is a big enough issue there.
You assume that the Framers would have preferred direct democracy, if only it were technologically feasible. Anyone actually familiar with the arguments of the time, however, would know that the Framers had excellent and thoroughly-articulated reasons for preferring a republic to a democracy.
I think government by referendum is a disastrously stupid idea, as the fiscal basket case that is California demonstrates.
Apples and oranges do make a fine drink, but they still did have a referendum on a very important issue, not the color of their license plate. The Framers also had a lot of positions that are not all that up to modern life standards and could be considered outright stupid by some.
Logan, the Framers didn’t believe in direct democracy (not only by their statements, but by their actions, including details in the U.S. Constitution, not limited to the Electoral College).
However, cries for reform that arose in the later 19th century did result in reform, or at least change in favor of democracy and populism (not limited to the capital-P Populists as well as the Progressives), and that includes many states that have the initiative, referendum, and also often the recall. (We also got direct election of Senators.) Yes, these can be abused and they sometimes leave those of us observing intelligently regret the abuses and understand the need not to have “unlimited” democracy (especially with the federal government) and to fight the dumbing-down of government structures simply in the name of “democracy.” (I’ve also said voting should be qualified, even weighted.)
These cannot all be presumed to be of the same nature as the constant cries for abolishing the Electoral College in favor of direct election of the President (and Vice President, if that job isn’t abolished instead), for example, but some accountability to the voters (introducing the risk of exploitation and abuse, yes) has been felt by many (most?) to be a good, not a bad, thing.
(Initiative and referendum are more significant than the recall.)
http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i%26r.htm
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16600
And, of course, cries for reform existed as of Ratification, and Andrew Jackson’s historical importance includes an association with much more democratic government and society than were his predecessors.
Note that referenda can be used as super-polls in the states (any federal referendum is constitutionally questionable, not that that has stopped many a liberal in the past), be non-binding insofar as legislation is concerned, where there’s no explicit referendum law.
I would have preferred a referendum for voters.
Why?
Also, dduck: that’s not really up to you. Kind of like it shouldn’t be up to you (or me, or any other individual) whether or not two people who love each other should be allowed to get married.