Over the past few years when citizens across the country organized to put initiatives on their respective state’s ballot enacting a law or amending the state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, I, while opposing their initiatives, appreciated their motivation. They did not want their state Supreme Court to mandate that their state recognize same-sex marriages.
I would rather they put forward a different measure, removing marriage from the court’s jurisdiction so that their action would not bar the elected legislature from taking action.
But, with the legislatures in Maine and Vermont having acted on their own, without being mandated by the state Supreme Court, I have less appreciation for citizens who seek recourse through the initiative process. In previous cases, citizens were taking a stand against an unelected court imposing its will on the state. But, the issue changes when an elected legislature changes the law. Because that’s what its job is, to make laws.
The court’s job is to interpret and apply them.
To be sure, the Maine Constitution allows for a “citizen’s veto. And I expect they’ll succeed in gathering the 55,000 signatures they need to get such a bill on the state ballot. How it will fare is anyone’s guess.
This time, however, opponents of the measure can’t claim they’re fighting to preserve the will of the people. For, in Maine, the people, through their elected representatives, have spoken.
Actually, they can very easily claim to be preserving the will of the people.
Maine had traditional marriage — that was the will of the people. I would wager very few politicians ran for office in Maine promising to redefine the marriage institution.
Particularly, as I just noted in your other post, that polls in Maine show the majority of voters do NOT support gay marriage:
You know as well as I do that no candidate agrees with every voter on every issue. You also know, I suspect, that voters rank the economy, jobs, health care, the war on terror, Iraq, and many other issues much higher than gay marriage in terms of issues that will influence their vote.
What you seem to be arguing is that gay marriage should be the law of the land, even if people don’t want it, unless the people are willing to throw representatives they may otherwise agree with out of office.
You seem to be arguing that the people should be forced to accept the bad with the good.
But no matter what you seem to be saying, you are directly saying that you don’t support the people directly deciding this issue:
The initiative process is a legitimate check on legislative power and the most direct measure of the will of the people. And yet you oppose it.
I cant support you there.
AE, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Wow, colour me in the middle.
I applaud the efforts of the legislature and executive branch when they do their job and legislate and elect. But the ‘people’s veto’ is very much a part of the republican process.
To create a new benefit is the province of the legislature, but reining in the government is the right of the governed. if they feel an error has been made
Let me take another route. If the city goes to knock down the crackhouse next door, and they hit your house instead, do you want them to fix the damage they did, or do you want to just vote the city councilmen out of office and call it a day?
Well, living in Maine, I have two small observations for your discussion:
First, AE(#1) is right that most of the state senate and specifically Governor Baldacci ran on opposition to gay marriage. Some noises about civil unions, here and there, but explicit rejection of SSM. Honestly, we were surprised when I heard the news, as we all expected the Gov to veto it.
Second, and I think more salient, is that the citizen’s recall is much more likely to happen than most reports outline.
The whole marriage debate involved a single open forum in the state capital, mid-afternoon with only four or five days notice for opponents. My hobby horse in this was the religious exemption. But, I couldn’t attend because the timing was – deliberately, I’m sure – so inconvenient. The traditional marriage folks not only viewed this is short-shrift to a very complex issue, but were quick to point out reports from neighboring New Hampshire where the federal Dems had leaned heavily on them for passage.
Mainers may be the most gay-friendly folks that I’ve ever met, but they are also fiercely provincial. If stories of “outside pressure” gain any traction at all, bank on the citizen’s veto.
For the time being, we’re all still holding our breath.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Is “Mainers” the correct term for people of Maine?
I like it!
Now I might have 2 reasons to move there.
MFS, you’re being just a tad conspiritorial about the hearing. The site had to be moved on short notice because of the expected overflow at the original venue (Cony High). The Shrine Circus was scheduled to take place 4-24 & 4-25, so the hearing had to take place on the 22nd. Geez, it was on short notice for the pro-SSM side as well.
Also, what’s gonna hurt your side is Michael Heath’s gang repeatedly saying that we have already voted on this twice, in 1998 & 2000. Uh-uh compadre. Maine has NEVER voted on SSM. Saying that we have is a bald-faced lie & will hurt you in the ensuing campaign. Totally ignoring the 2005 civil rights vote also will be detrimental to the veto campaign.
AE, I agree with your points and thrust.
I think Dan’s suspicion of the initiative movement may be tempered by his exposure to its excesses out in CaliLand… he ought to recall that in the more sane and rational Midwest or NorthEast, initiatives are rare animals used specifically to address issues the conventional pols are either afraid of or view as politically toxic to their survival.
I think an initiative or vote of the people is far more preferrable for marriage equality activists than judicial fiat or even legislative action or executive orders. It has the dual effect of feeding the need for validation while giving us what we want… what’s to be hazarded there?
As I read these comments, I get the impression that same sex marriage was treated as an administrative adjustment and adequate notice was given to a generally indifferent public which had other things to do.
I would be astounded if that were actually the case. If same sex marriage has become a no-brainer type of minor regulation tinkering in Maine, I doubt the newspapers would take any notice.
#5 The correct term is “Mainah”
As a lifelong Mainah, my prediction : Signatures will be gathered. If the question is on the ballot in June, the repeal will win. If it is on the ballot in November, the repeal will lose.
Legislators are elected on a wide range of issues, some on a narrow mandate of constituent issues, some on a wide one. Factoring in the typical lobbying efforts, franking privileges of incumbency, and other perks that favor career politicians and the claim that legislator votes are “the voice of the people” is not entirely true. If our state and federal governments were as limited (time, power, immune to lobbying, etc.) as they were originally, I might agree with you but that’s simply not the case.
Those who oppose term limits use the same logic: after all, isn’t the ballot box the best term-limiter? It’s not surprising that during an economically stressful period where sensitive issues are relegated to lower positions in voter priority lists is when these issues make considerable gains in legislatures apart from voter input. It is precisely this input advocates of change don’t want, i.e. the more directly democratic process of initiatives and referenda. Thus, it’s not surprising that a same-sex marriage advocate is in favor of legislators over the direct voice of the people, citing republicanism as a justification while ignoring the reality of de jure republicanism vs. de facto special interest tyranny.
TnnsNE1 Why do you believe the timing of the referrendum is important?
Voter turnout. The *passionate* on both sides will vote in June but the middle of the road will not. I think it will be the middle of the road vote that would uphold the law. They would go to the polls in November 2010.
Funny, I always thought the term for the state’s citizens was “Maineacs.” After all, look who they put in the Senate – a couple of RINOs.
Still, I agree with the majority on this post (sorry, AE, nothing personal). It was an act of the legislature, which represents the state’s eligible voting population, and not an act of fiat by a judge. It is legal.
Regards,
Peter H.
MFS, your comments do cause me to reconsider my opinion. I do believe in transparency and allowing for public debate.
And M-M, yup, my view of initiatives is tempered by their overuse in the Golden State.
Dan, someday you’re going to have to drop this it’s-not-the-role-of-the-courts ridiculousness. We can go back and forth forever between legislatures and popular votes on this issue and others like it. The courts are the trump card, and you’re shooting yourself in the foot by dismissing them. How is what might happen in Maine via an initiative process any different from what happened in California? In the United States, we have three branches of government, and one of those branches isn’t popular votes. You seem to think we’ve only got two branches and that popular votes can overturn the other branches’ decisions. That’s not how it works.
If the means to enact gay marriage that you prefer, meaning through the legislature, are exhausted and overruled by a popular vote, you’re just going to sit there and not use the courts? That makes it seem like you don’t care about the goal of gay marriage as much as you ‘need validation’ from the general public.
seem to think we’ve only got two branches and that popular votes can overturn the other branches’ decisions. That’s not how it works.
Wanna bet?
The Constitution EXPLICITLY states that the branches of government exist solely because of a mandate of the people governed, and that at any time the people may choose alter that mandate by amending and/or changing their Constitution to eliminate one, the other, or both.
If the people cannot vote to change their government, you have a monarchy or oligarchy. The Obama Party, with its obsession with controlling peoples’ lives through government, wants that; as you make clear, you only support democracy and the right to vote when it gives you exactly what you want. That’s why the Obama Party opposes enforcement of the Constitutional requirement that require people to be citizens to vote and why the Obama Party takes illegal campaign contributions.
What Dan said. Not a fan of the initiative process at all, especially when it comes to matters fiscal. I suppose I could be talked into things of a social nature if the majority needed to win is quite large, say at 65%. If it’s only a bare majority of 50.0000001%, then forget it.
I tried to comment on this earlier and typed this long winded response, but, the comment page malfunctioned. Typical growing pains when switching to a new server. In retrospect, the comment was way too long and meandering. Everyone should probably be greatfull.
PS. I have many relatives in Maine. They have always called themselves Mainiacs, though things do change.
I like the referendum process in Maine. Having 90 days after the end of the legislative session to gather signatures (the number determined by a % of the votes cast in the last governor’s race) seems to work well. We have very few of them. The equal rights issue was decided this way in Maine. It took 3 attempts, each attempt garnered more support.
#17, Your relatives must be from *away*. If your grandparent’s parents didn’t live here, then you are from away.
Levi, huh?
Do you just exist to criticize conservatives? I have no clue what you’re getting at in your concluding paragraph about validation.
As I’ve said before, I’m pretty ambivalent about gay marriage, content with civil unions and believe this should be resolved through the legislatures.
If you can’t see the difference between Maine and California, then you’re clueless as to the points I’ve repeated ad nauseum and am not going to repeat them for your benefit since you’ll just tell me I didn’t say what I actually said.
Oh, that’s right, Levi believes some parts of the constitution are more important than others and that the people can’t overturn the legislature. I forgot.
Thanks for the clarification of the opinion. Now the sociologist in me wants a November ballot, because I think you’re wrong. 😉
My Nana and Papa lived in Maine, and their parents did at one time (I think), so I must be from there (I think).
Peter,
No offense taken, you can disagree with me all day long if you want, and I wont take offense so long as you do so mostly civilly and honestly.
But I think you’re reading the comments wrong. by my count the majority agree with me 😉
Peter H, there’s no argument being raised here about whether or not the Maine law is LEGAL. The issue is whether or not it reflects the “will of the people.” THE founding principle of this country is that the citizenry is sovereign. WE the People establish the government to do our bidding, not the other way around. We created checks and balances between the different branches of gov’t, as well as checks and balances between the different LEVELS of gov’t. Many of those C&B have been knocked out of whack, but the underlying principle remains.
Perhaps you should take a read of the Declaration of Independence to clarify your thinking.
The action by Maine’s legislature is the only legitimate adoption of SSM thus far. IIRC, Vermont’s was pushed by the courts. The courts told the legislature to pass a law that would satisfy them. Since the courts are not the “trump card” Levi imagines them to be (or at least they sure as hell aren’t supposed to be), any adoption of SSM driven by the courts, whether directly (Iowa, Cali, Hawaii, etc) or indirectly (Vermont) are “of questionable legitimacy.”
We’ll know soon enough whether Mainiacs care enough about this to overturn the legislature. Frankly, if I were a betting man, I wouldn’t be putting my money on SSM. It’s only gotten past the citizenry once in over 30 tries, and the folks reversed themselves the next election. Perhaps SSM is due to win one….
Dan, I may be in somewhat agreement with AmericanElephant here. It’s the right of the people to challenge the legislature here. If they get enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot, and it actually wins, so be it. That apparently is the process in Maine.
Like you, I do agree with you that I prefer that same sex marriage happens through the legislature and/or the voters. However, I take another slight issue with the following:
I, while opposing their initiatives, appreciated their motivation. They did not want their state Supreme Court to mandate that their state recognize same-sex marriages.
I know the arguments against judicial activism and legislating from the bench, and all that. But let’s not kid ourselves here. Those who started the Prop. 8 campaign mostly did it because they oppose same sex marriage. If the state legislature approved it, and was signed by the governor, most, if not almost all of these persons would have attempted to launch a Prop. 8 anyway. Further, if this was the other way around, i.e., the state supreme court struck down same sex marriage, overturning such legislation, I am fairly confident that these folks wouldn’t start a campaign to allow same sex marriage to thwart the activist judges.
Pat,
You’re correct. In fact there was the referendum that the legislature couldn’t override. But rather than repeal it the way the constitution of CA intended, the SSM crowd made an end run to the courts.
To continue my (flawed) analogy above. If someone robs me, I want the perp caught and the property returned (Prop 8). I’m not a bad person if I lock my doors to keep from being robbed in the first place.(Prop 22)
The initiative process is just as much a part of the democratic process as the legislature is. I hope the bill stands, but there’s nothing illegitimate or undemocratic about the people forcing a direct referendum on it.
And to add–nothing could MORE democratically legitimize the Maine bill as “the will of the people” than having it come up for repeal by referendum at a general election, and having it FAIL to be repealed. Nothing.
Bikerdad, I understand your argument. And we are in agreement that the Maine decision was decided by the legislature, i.e. the “voice of the people.” I’m not denying that it was the case.
And also, in other states (including California) where a DOMA was on the ballot, it passed overwhelmingly. I’m sure that the Iowa ruling will be challenged either this year or next and probably overturned by a referendum.
Still, I am wondering why you think I am not questioning the validity of the Maine legislature? You won’t find anyone on this board more of a Federalist than I.
Regards,
Peter H.
One benefit to the “Maine Way” is the law will not take effect if the required signatures are collected and verified by the 91st day after the end of the legislative session. This will mean that couples will not marry and then have their marriages in legal limbo if the law is repealed by the people’s vote. I think it is a very common sense approach.
#31 Amen.
That’s one thing that irritates me about the California supremes. Their eagerness to push their agenda gives them 3 options.
1) Accept their role in the government, Prop 8 stands and retroactively annuls marriage for hundreds/thousands of couples. They get the shaft and blame everyone but the court who gave them the false hope in the first place.
2) Decide that proposition 8 ‘revises’ the constitution, even though that was decided before the vote. The court has now seized the right to void any ammendment past or present that they decide was a revision. Levi rejoyces.
3) Keep the heart of prop 8, but void the retroactive part. This benefits the above mentioned couples, but again gives the court the power to modify amendments as they see fit, after the fact.
For the record, according to the Secretary of State in Maine, the names and home addresses of each person signing the veto petitions will be available for publication under the Freedom of Information Act.
Potential signers of the veto petition should be aware that this is not an anonymous process. Contributors to Proposition 8 in California were horrified to learn that their names and home addresses were made public.
In fairness, Maine voters should be aware of this in deciding whether or not to stand up publicly against marriage equality and must be willing to accept any ramifications as a result of their act of petition.
Andreas, as this post makes clear, I do not support the Citizen’s Veto. Are you saying then that you support the juvenile tactics of those who targeted Prop 8 contributors? It certainly sounds that way from the third paragraph of your comment, “willing to accept.”
It seems almost as if you favor threatening them into silence. That’s not democracy, that’s not a republican system of government. That’s government by thuggery.
If the petition the government for redress of grievances, as they would, should they sign on to such a proposal, no one should attack them personally, but instead counter their concerns with strong arguments.
But, then again, such a civil response would violate what Rush called the “standard operating procedure for the left: don’t debate your opponents; destroy them.”
More on this anon.
Actually, a friend’s brother gave money to Prop 8 thinking it was somehow secret. Now they are not speaking because my friend is gay and found out. He also has received feedback from others on the matter.
The brother said if he had known that his name would become public, he would have “thought twice.”
FURTHER, a signature to veto Equality, capital “E” IS a personal attack, NOT some abstract theoretical disagreement. By definition, equality means equal treatment, and the fact that Maine (or other States) has the power to vote on who “gets to be equal” flies in the face of the notion of equality. If a majority of voters wanted to bring back slavery, would you begrudge the transparency of the process? Let people know in advance that they are to be held accountable for publicly asserting prejudice, unfairness and bigotry. THAT”s what the Freedom of Information Act is DESIGNED to enable. Thuggery aside, the names WILL become public.
P.S. Hopefully in Real Time!
Ah, always nice to see that terror, intimidation and threats are part of the free speech of the left.
Why don’t we publicize everyone who didn’t sign the petiiton instead?
In fact, Andreas why don’t you post your name and address over at the site of that vaunted democrat Fred Phelps (D-Hell). after all if you want the ‘freedom’ to harass and bully those exercising their rights of petition, surely you’d be willing to open yourself up to those who violently disagree with you?
Though it sounds like me, you’re conceeding the right to have any of the DOMA legislation/ammendments removed.
Andreas, just because the names will become public doesn’t mean people should intimidate them. The people who do the intimidating will likely discredit themselves and increase the likelihood of the veto passing.
If they want to ensure its defeat, they should treat their opponents in a civil manner.