Massive, crushing defeat for Marriage Equality in New York

[Serafine666]

Oregon IS moving toward a repeal and is, in fact, securing popular support before doing so.

By which you mean, Basic Rights Oregon is playing Don Quixote in a forlorn hope to reverse a 60-40 slapdown in only a few years. Measure 36 passed pretty powerfully and BRO is silly to think they can magic it away by starting the "these people are so mean and small-minded" campaign early.

And I never said anything about marriage in 2010 in Washington but rather 2011--after everyone in the state legislature has been safely reelected. That's part of the state strategy. Nobody does anything which could influence a major election year. R-71 was passed in a year with no major elections other than for City of Seattle Mayor. It's pretty much an open secret that the gay legislators (we have more than a few) in the Washington State legislature agreed to this plan, and so far, it's worked flawlessly, each bite-and-hold has been successful and we're chewing off a little more each time. And maybe instead of just futilely trying the same things over again, those grease-slicked lobbyist suits for the HRC should come out here and start asking us how we got R-71 passed in insanely rural places like Clallam and Skagit counties.

And yet, passing R71 required that you get overwhelming majorities in the populous and supportive Puget Sound counties to counter the rest of the state. That's generally not a good sign since Prop 8 got shoved over the finish line by the "redneck" counties of California despite overwhelming opposition in the populous counties.

[Duckie]

Washington isn't really California. Unlike California, it's possible to pass a measure in washington by using only King County- many R-#s have been passed by gaining high support in King County and the surrounding Puget areas, which is the only populous area in the entire state, and indeed makes up a large percent of the state's population, and then merely losing only moderately badly in the other regions.

With that said, 53% is really really low for what it should have been. The measure polled at 60%, although only 51% among likely voters since older, more conservative voters were the majority of the electorate in an off-year when the reactionaries are the only ones enthusiastic about voting. But the point stands- better than usual performance or not, 53% support for civil union knockoffs is insufficient to pass gay marriage in a state. 60% might be plausible, but that requires you get equal turnout for liberals and progressives compared to wingnut bigots who will turn out to vote No for any gay rights measure no matter what or when, meaning it'd have to be done in 2012.

[Serafine666]

The only thing that will truly start moving equality forward in this country is when all the old throwbacks to the 50's finally start dying.

Unfortunately, however, they're being replaced at least as fast as they're dying. The "aging population" problem means that the trend of increasing conservatism as someone ages pushes more voters into the opposition camp and out of the supporter camp.

[Serafine666]

This "leave it to the states" bullshit has to end.

Which, unfortunately, requires a constitutional amendment which is essentially impossible. When your governing philosophy goes to shit without federalism, repealing federalism is sorta hard to do.

[Duckie]

Actually, studies have shown that aging causes no real conservativism in a person as far as social issues go. That canard is an old wives' tale that people seem to take for granted, which is silly- why would a person suddenly start not supporting gay rights if they did before? It'd not even like marijuana where you can say "Oh now I'm a full adult and responsible" or something. There's literally no reason. What happens that makes idiots think this is true is that new social issues pop up which that generation does not support. They don't go backwards on their generation's social issues, or no progress would ever be made.

In fact, a study by Andrew Gelman of Columbia University found no statistical evidence for a change in opinion that correlates with increasing age for gay rights*, so even if we accept the 'a conservative under 35 has no heart, a liberal over 35 has no brain' meme regardless of how stupid and patently illogical it is, the concept in this specific situation has been studied and disproven.

*That is, getting older doesn't decrease your support for gay rights, it's an issue of generation and not age per se, and so does not change as an individual gets older.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Currently polls were running up to 50 - 50 even on support for gay marriage in Washington State. The polling is off, though, unquestionably off; I would peg support presently at 47%. If we can get a 1% increase a year we'd be able to survive a ballot vote on the issue in 2012 when progressive turnout will be high, which is why the legislature pushing it through in late 2011 seems reasonable.

Serafine, you're ignoring the fact that there has been a huge flood of Californians into Oregon, which is only accelerating, and the Multnomah County metropolitan area has seen incredibly prodiguous growth. I live in Vancouver on the north bank and, well, Portland and the surrounding area is simply uncomplicatedly tolerant. The Portland metro is a growing, and growing fast, part of the state whereas areas like Bend are being almost denuded due to the recent economic slump.

Not like I much care about Oregon, though; which is friendly rivalry from the north side of the border (you're actually awesome people). The point though is that the demographics of the pacific northwest are rapidly coming to favour gay marriage.

And let's be honest. I went to WSU Pullman--I've driven the SR 26 from Ellensburg out there, I've driven down to Clarkston and through Walla Walla and all of those little counties there. The map with so many counties voting against is deceptive; each one has like ten thousand people in it. Some have a lot less. Even with those counties going 65% against like they did, even 70% again, we'd need like three times as many of those counties to truly give eastern Washington the same weight as the west. Not even then, actually.

My only concern is the large number of military personnel in Pierce County, which really is urban enough that it should have voted for R-71. That and of course the eyesore of a teleported chunk of Alabama that is Lewis County, but they're also small enough to be irrelevant as anything more than a scarefest of "Where's the Birth Certificate!?" when driving from Portland to Seattle and Back.

[Serafine666]

Serafine, you're ignoring the fact that there has been a huge flood of Californians into Oregon, which is only accelerating, and the Multnomah County metropolitan area has seen incredibly prodiguous growth. I live in Vancouver on the north bank and, well, Portland and the surrounding area is simply uncomplicatedly tolerant. The Portland metro is a growing, and growing fast, part of the state whereas areas like Bend are being almost denuded due to the recent economic slump.

It's nice that one city in Oregon is "tolerant" (which seems to include public officials that lie and admit it but not police officers) but without a gauge of the political affiliation of the Californians, that lots of them are coming north doesn't by itself mean much. Believe it or not, conservatives (like me) migrate north sometimes.

Not like I much care about Oregon, though; which is friendly rivalry from the north side of the border (you're actually awesome people). The point though is that the demographics of the Pacific Northwest are rapidly coming to favour gay marriage.

Aww, now you're making me all blushy. But we'll see about this demographics change although I'm looking forward to BRO getting another slapdown if only because their (printed) justification of trying again is that they're encouraged by courts and legislatures imposing gay marriage without it passing by popular vote in a single state. That and the post-Prop 8 scene sort of poisoned my genuine live-and-let-live outlook on the gay "rights" issues.

My only concern is the large number of military personnel in Pierce County, which really is urban enough that it should have voted for R-71. That and of course the eyesore of a teleported chunk of Alabama that is Lewis County, but they're also small enough to be irrelevant as anything more than a scarefest of "Where's the Birth Certificate!?" when driving from Portland to Seattle and Back.

We will see, Your Highness.

[ray245]

Aww, now you're making me all blushy. But we'll see about this demographics change although I'm looking forward to BRO getting another slapdown if only because their (printed) justification of trying again is that they're encouraged by courts and legislatures imposing gay marriage without it passing by popular vote in a single state. That and the post-Prop 8 scene sort of poisoned my genuine live-and-let-live outlook on the gay "rights" issues.

Apparently you are too dumb to understand that minority rights is one of the few issues that should not be decided by a popular vote.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This "leave it to the states" bullshit has to end.

Which, unfortunately, requires a constitutional amendment which is essentially impossible. When your governing philosophy goes to shit without federalism, repealing federalism is sorta hard to do.

No. Legally it does not. The full faith and credit clause and the 14th amendment rape said federalism in regards to marriage over a barrell. However we have Scalia and his house *n word* sidekick Thomas as well as Roberts and Alito who in this respect dont actually give a shit what the constitution says WRT to individual rights. Then there is Kennedy... The Great unknown.

[Lusankya]

I feel your pain. As a gay man in CA, Prop H8 was like a sucker punch to the gut that still hurts to this day. At least the vote in Maine wasn't a damn constitutional amendment. The legislature can go back and enact marriage equality again. Of course, that means you'd have to have a populous vote on it again. This, I believe, was the way gay rights in Maine was eventually passed - by legislating it and voting on them multiple times until it worked. We all know the sole purpose of these marriage bans is to continue to keep gay couples socially invisible. As long as we make a ruckus and never stop putting on the pressure, they can never truly win.

I really should have asked this back when it happened, but why does Maine have this thing that lets citizens overturn legislation passed by the state? And why does it only seem to apply for things like marriage equality and not for things like revisions of occupational health and safety regulations and new building standards?

[Serafine666]

Apparently you are too dumb to understand that minority rights is one of the few issues that should not be decided by a popular vote.

And you seem to be ignorant about from whom the power flows. Under US law, only the majority has a right to determine what things are "rights" and what thing are not and only the majority has the power to remove those representatives who do not seem to understand who has the power to make that determination. Sorry to say, Ray, that the majority rules.

[Lusankya]

Apparently you are too dumb to understand that minority rights is one of the few issues that should not be decided by a popular vote.

And you seem to be ignorant about from whom the power flows. Under US law, only the majority has a right to determine what things are "rights" and what thing are not and only the majority has the power to remove those representatives who do not seem to understand who has the power to make that determination. Sorry to say, Ray, that the majority rules.

Why does the majority have any intrinsic "right" to determine anything? The majority are semi-literate morons who simplify their understanding of the political process into the equivalent of supporting a football team. Most of them can't even make intelligent decisions regarding their own lives, let alone regarding the well-being of a nation.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

And you seem to be ignorant about from whom the power flows. Under US law, only the majority has a right to determine what things are "rights" and what thing are not and only the majority has the power to remove those representatives who do not seem to understand who has the power to make that determination. Sorry to say, Ray, that the majority rules.

That doesn't make him wrong. It just means you have a terrible political system.

[mr friendly guy]

Apparently you are too dumb to understand that minority rights is one of the few issues that should not be decided by a popular vote.

And you seem to be ignorant about from whom the power flows. Under US law, only the majority has a right to determine what things are "rights" and what thing are not and only the majority has the power to remove those representatives who do not seem to understand who has the power to make that determination. Sorry to say, Ray, that the majority rules.

1. Even under Western democracies, that is not completely true. For example rulings and laws can be challenged in your courts. So your statement is simplistic at best.

2. Its not just a matter of what is the law is like, people are arguing what the law should be. And I am not talking about specifically whether gay marriage should be allowed, I am refering to Ray's point that minority rights shouldn't be decided by popular vote. By pointing out that something is done this way does not invalidate his statement that something should be done another way. The fact that the law says this, doesn't mean morality automatically follows suit. To use the law to justify itself in this situation amounts to circular reasoning.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I feel your pain. As a gay man in CA, Prop H8 was like a sucker punch to the gut that still hurts to this day. At least the vote in Maine wasn't a damn constitutional amendment. The legislature can go back and enact marriage equality again. Of course, that means you'd have to have a populous vote on it again. This, I believe, was the way gay rights in Maine was eventually passed - by legislating it and voting on them multiple times until it worked. We all know the sole purpose of these marriage bans is to continue to keep gay couples socially invisible. As long as we make a ruckus and never stop putting on the pressure, they can never truly win.

I really should have asked this back when it happened, but why does Maine have this thing that lets citizens overturn legislation passed by the state? And why does it only seem to apply for things like marriage equality and not for things like revisions of occupational health and safety regulations and new building standards?

Because no one cares about non-controversial laws enough to fund the effort to put them to a vote. Bigotry, on the other hand, is a multi-million dollar business.

[Lusankya]

Well, I knew that bit obviously, but the idea of people just randomly being able to have an election to get rid of any law they feel like just seems weird to me. I mean, there are plenty of laws out there which are unpopular, yet necessary (like taxes). Giving people the option to vote them down seems like foolishness to me.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Apparently you are too dumb to understand that minority rights is one of the few issues that should not be decided by a popular vote.

And you seem to be ignorant about from whom the power flows. Under US law, only the majority has a right to determine what things are "rights" and what thing are not and only the majority has the power to remove those representatives who do not seem to understand who has the power to make that determination. Sorry to say, Ray, that the majority rules.

Wow, thats how America works then?

So its a good thing the "Majority" of Americans decided that slavery was just fine right? Or that instituting JIm Crow laws was ok? Or that a "Majority" of Americans where ok criminalizing Blacks in a significant part of the country?I hate to break this to you, but while most on the right HATE us to do so, the cause for Gay rights is little different then the cause for equality among blacks.

For a large part of this nations history, blacks where enslaved, brutalized, marginalized, and criminalized by "the majority" of Americans. The striking down of jim crow laws and "Separate but equal" was only done on a Federal level and done so highly against the wishes of "the majority" of many MANY americans.

Any argument that the anti gay marriage movement today is perfectly fine because it is supported by "the majority" OR that it would be 'wrong' fro the federal government or courts to step in and Impose their will upon states Fails when compared to the past.. You CAN NOT argue that what is happening today is right without saying what happened to blacks was also right. It is a rather glaring Fact that large parts of this nation, had the Government NOT stepped in and imposed its beliefs, would still be using separate but equal and criminalizing blacks at every turn.

Unless oyu wish to argue this is a good thing, you will CEASE using the idiotic "It is the will of the people" argument to defend Anti Gay rights.

Thank you.

[Edward Yee]

Never underestimate the small mindedness of humanity.A pity the Governor can't use an executive order to pass this despite those small minded bastards.

I don't know if you're from New York, but my impression from living and reading the local newspapers is that Governor Patterson has so little political currency left that it wouldn't be a strong foundation for gay marriage in New York State.

[Andrew J.]

This "leave it to the states" bullshit has to end.

Which, unfortunately, requires a constitutional amendment which is essentially impossible. When your governing philosophy goes to shit without federalism, repealing federalism is sorta hard to do.

Congress could just use its enforcement power under §5 of the 14th Amendment. Hell, I think there's even a decent argument that Congress could do it under the commerce clause.

[Darth Wong]

Apparently you are too dumb to understand that minority rights is one of the few issues that should not be decided by a popular vote.

And you seem to be ignorant about from whom the power flows. Under US law, only the majority has a right to determine what things are "rights" and what thing are not and only the majority has the power to remove those representatives who do not seem to understand who has the power to make that determination. Sorry to say, Ray, that the majority rules.

Why do we have higher courts? If your logic holds, we should abolish all higher courts and decide all such issues with plebiscites.

[Simplicius]

I really should have asked this back when it happened, but why does Maine have this thing that lets citizens overturn legislation passed by the state? And why does it only seem to apply for things like marriage equality and not for things like revisions of occupational health and safety regulations and new building standards?

It doesn't. For instance, there was a ballot question to repeal a statewide school district reorganization this November; there's a conservative think-tank trying to organize a repeal of an income and sales tax overhaul for the June referendum; etc. But there's no reason those kinds of items warrant media attention outside the state.

I might be mistaken, but I think all of this 'direct citizen participation' business turned up as a part of the progressive movement in the first part of the 20th C., right alongside the sweep across the states to make state constitutions easily changeable by the citizenry as well.

[Serafine666]

Why does the majority have any intrinsic "right" to determine anything? The majority are semi-literate morons who simplify their understanding of the political process into the equivalent of supporting a football team. Most of them can't even make intelligent decisions regarding their own lives, let alone regarding the well-being of a nation.

Sort of by process of elimination. Either a majority can determine something or a minority can. There doesn't seem to be any logic at all in "the minority is the only folks who can decide what their rights are" because that implies no controlling mechanism. At least, as others have pointed out, there is a controlling mechanism on what the majority may do.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And you seem to be ignorant about from whom the power flows. Under US law, only the majority has a right to determine what things are "rights" and what thing are not and only the majority has the power to remove those representatives who do not seem to understand who has the power to make that determination. Sorry to say, Ray, that the majority rules.

Only in a constrained way. We have this little thing called a constitution, perhaps you have read it... It constrains the sorts of decisions that the Majority are legally allowed to make and protects minorities from the tyranny a majority will always impose upon them.

lack of gay equality patently violates at least three clauses of said constitution as amended. The majority making this decision is actually Illegal.

[Serafine666]

1. Even under Western democracies, that is not completely true. For example rulings and laws can be challenged in your courts. So your statement is simplistic at best.

It is, that is true.

2. Its not just a matter of what is the law is like, people are arguing what the law should be. And I am not talking about specifically whether gay marriage should be allowed, I am refering to Ray's point that minority rights shouldn't be decided by popular vote. By pointing out that something is done this way does not invalidate his statement that something should be done another way. The fact that the law says this, doesn't mean morality automatically follows suit. To use the law to justify itself in this situation amounts to circular reasoning.

Quite true. Essentially, laws (and thereby rights) are either decided by a majority or a minority and the minority can range from thousands of members of a particular group to a ruling oligarchy to a monarchy/dictatorship. The system the US uses, at least in theory (because it relies on the application by people who have their own sets of biases and prejudices), has a mechanism to shield the minority from the whims of the majority which essentially amounts to the courts and the rights in the Constitution. For far too long, the building consensus against slavery was not translated into legal or constitutional action although by the time of the Civil War, it was the most populous part of the country that was fighting against the less populous in favor of abolition. In fact, the majority turning against slavery was apparent before the Civil War in the form of the Wilmot Proviso (banning slavery in all the lands captured from Mexico) which constantly passed the population-based House.
The thing is, while the majority can be shut down by the mechanisms in place to protect the minority, there really are no mechanisms that limit the minority in the same way because the possibility of the minority becoming powerful enough to impose laws on the majority (working through the courts which were regarded as the weakest arm of the government) was never considered except by some members of the Anti-Federalists (and even they only contemplated it in the abstract). At its most extreme end, the minority is a single person issuing proclamations about what the little people must do but in the modern United States, this takes the form of 5 people who can interpret the laws to confer rights and limitations on rights without any possibility of appeal by the majority. This is essentially why I think the majority, in both the legal and moral sense, is the best arbiter of rights.

[Serafine666]

Only in a constrained way. We have this little thing called a constitution, perhaps you have read it... It constrains the sorts of decisions that the Majority are legally allowed to make and protects minorities from the tyranny a majority will always impose upon them.

Quite true.

Lack of gay equality patently violates at least three clauses of said constitution as amended. The majority making this decision is actually Illegal.

What three clauses of the Constitution do you say have been violated? I can only think of one that could potentially be included in any allegation of a violation: the equal protection of the law clause in the 14th Amendment.