I dislike the idea of putting civil rights up for a vote

[bluestateguy]

But there are a growing number of states now, and there will be more in the future, where voters in a referendum would approve marriage equality. By my count, there would be Oregon, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, Maine, Rhode Island, and in a few years probably Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. I am also confident that the gay marriage laws in Maryland and Washington state will survive voter referendums.

The Southern state Bible Belt, as we saw tonight, and the Mountain state Book of Mormon Belt will be a longer haul. Given the composition of the current Supreme Court, we have to take the states we can when we can.

Demographics are on our side and they know it too. Angry old (mostly white) people cannot live forever to keep on voting away gay rights.

That means wishing well everyone who is fighting in court for the constitutional rights of gay Americans, but in the meantime working on trying to save as many states as we can for marriage equality while we watch the inevitable demographic tide turn in our favor.

[elleng]

1. Its RIDICULOUS to put 'civil rights' up for a vote.

People tend to vote the 'us vs. them' meme. Makes democracy ABSURD.

[hack89]

15. Happens all the time though. Gun control and gay rights initiatives, for example, are very common.

I don't see how you can stop them in the name of democracy unless you first restore the public's trust in America's political system and leadership. Many initiatives on many issues are driven purely by the voter's feeling alienated and not having a voice.

[MuseRider]

2. I agree

but I am an angry old white woman who will NOT die until I see marriage equality in all states.

This pisses me off so much, this letting people vote on the rights of others. How did we ever let things get this so far off track?

[msanthrope]

3. I agree. Civil rights should not be dependent on a benevolent majority. nt

[one_voice]

4. I agree!....

Gay rights are civil rights and should therefore be settled on the federal level, like before.

[edhopper]

5. According to the Constitution

and any reading of the Founders intent, you CAN"T put civil rights up to a popular vote.
Of course the current SCOTUS doesn't adhere to the Constitution.

[bigwillq]

7. But SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS

Issue No. 1 is the SCOTUS!!!!!q11111 damnit



Thank Jeebus we got Sonia and Elena

[edhopper]

16. Are you agreeing with me

or laughing at me?

[bigwillq]

17. Agree (nt)

[bigwillq]

6. I agree (nt)

[HereSince1628]

8. Are you sure Wisconsin voters get to put referenda on the ballot that way?

I don't mean to say that Wisconsin isn't progressive on marriage equality for all, I think it is...but

If we could put statewide referenda on ballots that way I think folks here would have quickly gone straight at the union-busting bill rather than doing the recalls.

[bluestateguy]

9. In 2004 Wisconsin voted to ban gay marriage

So yes it could be done the other way.

This is not the same public opinion environment as 2004.

[HereSince1628]

13. Do you mean the 2006 Referendum on marriage equality amendment? That was not a citizen initiative.

It was a requirement of the process for amending the state's constitution. It was placed on the ballot by the legislature action after the amendment was passed in two consecutive assemblies.

Regarding citizen initiated referenda in WI the following statement comes from the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, "Governing Wisconsin" pdf... http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/gw/gw_13.pdf

on page 1 middle column a line or two below the 2nd and third order headings "DIRECT LEGISLATION"
and "Initiative in cities and villages"

"Unlike many states, Wisconsin does not provide for a statewide initiative process." http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/gw/gw_13.pdf

[underseasurveyor]

10. Civil Rights should not be put to a vote anymore than

God or religion should be put to a vote.

Despite the fact that I don't believe in either god or religion it's up to those who chose to believe to have that choice and it shall not be infringed upon and I would not ever vote against it.

Keep religion off my constitution and leave my civil rights alone! Simple Course if they want to push the issue I'm more than happy to push back

[Johonny]

11. it's even worse on an off election with low turn out

Why put major amendment to your state constitution up for a vote on a non-November ballot when you know the turn out will be low? It seems like the pathway to poor partisan crap making its way over and over into the law. I in general hate voter referendums. Bad ideas never die. They just come up over and over again until it hits an off cycle with low hyper partisan turn out. Then once it becomes law, it seems to remain impossible to remove. May be a generation ago these type things were good ideas, now they seem to be the pathway to terrible legislation.

[elleng]

12. Hell, the Constitution itself couldn't pass a referendum,

maybe then but certainly not now.

Anyone seen 1776??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_(musical)
Its at Ford's Theater. Maybe I'll go.

[MineralMan]

14. Civil rights should never be on a ballot.

It is that simple. That they are on the ballot should be grounds to overturn any such thing.

Minnesota will be voting on a similar amendment in November. The civil rights issue is one of the arguments that may convince people to vote NO on this horrible measure.

[Bake]

18. If civil rights had been put to a vote in the 1960s, we'd still have segregation and Jim Crow

Civil rights are inalienable.

Bake