The Constitution guarantees states a “republican” form of government. Republics make law via legislatures, not by judicial fiat or the mob rule of pure democracy.
Conservatives like me, applauded California’s referenda reversing its Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage creation.
We admonished same-sex marriage supporters to exercise their free speech rights in the arena of ideas. They did so in Maine, successfully lobbying the Pine Tree State into enacting a same-sex marriage law, only to be rebuffed by a public referenda law that strips the constitutional republican bark off Maine’s pine tree.
This conservative supports traditional marriage as the exclusive version, but I also love the rule of law and the finality necessary for it to be respected. Maine’s referenda as veto invites legislatures to abdicate their accountability and prevents legal finality, much like Roe v. Wade’s judicial fiat.
-This column originally appeared as part of a “Pro & Con” feature on page A11 of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Sunday, November 8, 2009. If a link becomes available, it will provided here.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Normally, law-making should be reserved for the legislature. HOWEVER, when a law is an egregious abuse of power, a strong and socially destructive violation of the public will, then the people have every right to step in and protect themselves and their country from both a tyrannical minority who can talk their way into the legislative process, and from the legislators who failed their people.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Agreed WSU, but in the Maine case, I don’t think any of those criteria apply, esp when you consider that the referenda vote was only 53-47.
I think the better course would have been for the opponents to re-lobby the legislature to rescind the law or seek a constitutional amendment.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Only an idiot would claim that a despised minority comprising 3-5% of the population, is somehow ‘tyrannical.’ The people of Maine voted to deny rights to a small minority of their citizens because they don’t like gays and lesbians. Condoning that action is bigotry.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Did the referendum process of Prop 1 violate Maine’s Constitution? If not, it’s a legitimate and legal exercise. If which case, you just don’t like referendum and need to ask the voter’s of the Pine State to tear that piece of bark of their tree.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
……IOW, if it was according to their Constitution, you cannot by definition say it “violates the rule of law.”
November 10th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Right on MWS.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“Did the referendum process of Prop 1 violate Maine’s Constitution?” You are absolutely correct. However, while I am not saying that I agree with Gamecock, I believe he is talking about the spirit of the constitution. Some argue that we in Ohio change our constitution as often as the Italians change governments. Is it legal? Yes. Is it a good and wise pratice? Some argue differently.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 – Great comments, and yes, it was constitutional and so according to Maine’s rule of law. They allow for any bill to be subject to a public referenda veto.
But I was referring to the spirit of republicanism, esp after I told gays in the early and mid-2000s that it was illegitimate to have judges create this right and that they ought to play by the rules and try and persuade people and get the law passed that they prefer.
But I do admit this is a close call.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Mike,
“that it was illegitimate to have judges create this right and that they ought to play by the rules and try and persuade people and get the law passed that they prefer.”
And that still holds true. “The people” rejected what they wanted in the most direct way possible.
In truth, we don’t have pure democracy OR pure repulicanism, but rather a blend of the two (with a good dose of judicial tyranny to top it off, but that’s a whole ‘nother issue).
November 10th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“In truth, we don’t have pure democracy OR pure repulicanism, but rather a blend of the two” Haha, thus we are in a way a democratic Republic.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Ohio,
“thus we are in a way a democratic Republic.”
Is it just me, is every country with “democratic republic” in its name ruled by a fat dictator wearing sunglasses and a military uniform, smoking on a cigar?
November 10th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Yes MWS those who call themselves a democratic Republic are usually run by dictators and gangsters. They give themselves a nice name to cover up the shenanigans.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
“Only an idiot would claim that a despised minority comprising 3-5% of the population, is somehow ‘tyrannical.’”
Proponents of Gay Marriage:
- Demand that all Americans recognize their “unions”, despite deep personal and religious beliefs against such things.
- Demand that we transform millenia-old institutions which were previously primarily about family to suit the personal affection of certain couples.
- Demand that alter our laws to create special unions for certain people based on how they fell, rather than on what is good for the country.
- Often want to shut down charities who are so despicable as to believe that children are entitled to both a mother and a father.
- Demand that we teach in the schools that homosexuality is normal, natural, and healthy
etc.
etc.
etc.
Now exactly which of those is NOT Tyrannical?
November 10th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I’ll wholeheartedly agree with MWS on this. I normally agree with you gamecock, but in this case I believe you to be dead wrong. The people operated within the constition just as surely as the legislature did.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I agree with Gamecock more here. Direct democracy is nothing more than mob rule and cannot be trusted by any but the most informed citizenry – a state at large could hardly be called “informed” voters. Whether I’d agree with the decision or not is irrelevant, passing laws in this manner is a mistake generally. California owes much of its disaster as a government by mob control over the state via its proposition system.
Power to pass laws rests with our elected representatives.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Unfortunately for MWS, homosexuality IS completely normal, natural, and healthy, which is why that gays will only continue to gain more and more rights until homosexuality IS fully accepted in our society.
The people that are against gay rights absolutely refuse to consider that they are wrong. Maybe if they at all questioned their views they’d understand why gay rights continues to make such progress, despite it suffering setbacks from time to time like in California and in Maine.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
If we went straight by the record it sure doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere. Losing in Maine of all places doesn’t say much for the movement several years after they got the courts in Massachusetts to hand down the laws from on high.
I’ve said it plenty of times, gays will be accepted in America when people can see the normal gay Americans that live normal American lives – religious, are good neighbors, help out around the community, etc. The gays they see on TV are not those people.
Votes against gay marriage are votes against crazy gay activists people wish would just shut up and stop acting like a bunch of idiots.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
#17 Amen! Most people associate being gay to any number of fetishes (leather and cross-dressing being among the most common associations), of which there isn’t really a connection. If that image gets broken, you’ll see greater acceptance of homosexuality overnight.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Gay activists actually remind me of Dennis in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. King Arthur just wants him to shut up, which Dennis takes as a brutal surpression of his rights, crying “Help! I’m being repressed!”
Just like all those suburban revolutionaries feel the need to rise up against all that repression they get from their inhumanely strict parents, listening to whatever is the new indie band, wearing Che t-shirts, and voting for Barack Obama
I’m sure the gay people really are getting lynched by straight-supremacist organizations, clubbed by violent policemen under the orders of racist government leaders, and treated as subhuman in every public institution.
So please forgive me for not taking the gay rights activists seriously, my bad.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
homosexuality is naturally occuring, so technically it is “natural”
But its not normal, and as for healthy – thats in a lot of dispute.
As far as I can see, and as I’ve said before, it seems as if the evidence points to homosexuality as some kind of genetic defect which occurs in a small percentage of the population.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
“#17 Amen! Most people associate being gay to any number of fetishes (leather and cross-dressing being among the most common associations), of which there isn’t really a connection. If that image gets broken, you’ll see greater acceptance of homosexuality overnight.”
This is only partially ture. Far bigger of a problem is the fact that many believe (with justification) that Homosexual activists want to flaunt their homosexuality and brainwash children against traditional moral and religious doctrines.
If the Gay community would come to its senses and talk more about getting basic rights, the problem would be solved. Marraige is protected, but Gays get most of the respect they want.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Knowing how tied in gay activists are to liberal agendas I honestly have a hard time disbelieving that myself when I hear it. I frankly do not believe the No side’s claims that there are restrictions in place to prevent such things, because I know the liberals sooner or later are going to push it. If Vermont wants to do it, great. And if thirty years later they still don’t say a word about homosexuality in schools and stick to a core academic curriculum, then perhaps I’d consider opening up things in Georgia.
A mainstream gay movement not interested in pushing a liberal social agenda will almost certainly have to develop to inaugurate the extension of marriage to include gay marriage.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
#21 “Far bigger of a problem is the fact that many believe (with justification) that Homosexual activists want to flaunt their homosexuality and brainwash children against traditional moral and religious doctrines.”
I agree with what you said, but you have a qualifier in there you may not recognize the importance of, and that’s “activist.” I don’t believe that homosexual “activists” are any more representative of what the average homosexual wants than NOW is of women (and they aren’t, either). It doesn’t change the fact that, if peopple saw that most homosexuals lived their lives pretty much like everyone else, there’d be little opposition to them. I am NOT going to weigh in on the marriage debate, however, as I’ll just endlessly rant about the misrepresentation of the issue at the hands of both sides.
The point Mike’s making with this post, however, is a good one. Only in extreme cases should mob rule be used to overturn the basic process, whether it’s allowed for by law or not. I really don’t like the idea of 5 wolves and 4 sheep voting on dinner, nor do I like 50 poor people voting themselves the contents of the pockets of the 49 people who have something. I don’t think this issue really gets to that level.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Although I agree that the mass is “ill informed” when voting, that cannot be an argument against what happened in Maine. For it is the same “ill informed” mass that elects the representatives.
The great thing about our nation, is that the people are the true source of power. If an elected government makes a poor decision, and either that elected body or the Constitution, allows for the people to second-guess them, then there is no problem.
In regards to homosexuality, this issue is not about granting them rights, it is merely an attempt for the government to accept and condone their acts. In Conn (I believe), gays were given the same rights that married couples receive, but that was not enough because the gays want the title. I do not see heterosexual couples that aren’t married fighting so hard for rights that they too are not entitled too.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
It sounds like you advocate a very basic revision of the Maine state constitution to forbid the electorate from overruling the legislature. Unfortunately that will require the people to, once again, be given a voice in order to permanently amend the Maine constitution. You should be relieved, however, that once they exercise that right they will never be able to do it again. Just one last time … then the legislature can call the shots for everyone, from now on, on ever single issue, big or small. Sounds like paradise to me!
November 11th, 2009 at 4:12 am
That’s how a republic functions, actually. Lawmaking in government remains in the hands of chosen representatives, selected democratically so as to find the best ones. History has many examples of stable republics, it has no examples of stable democracies. Ballot initiatives, like all direct democracy, are an easily-manipulated form of government.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:37 am
#25 I would favor a general referenda veto that required a super majority vote to overturn the legislature.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:51 am
“#25 I would favor a general referenda veto that required a super majority vote to overturn the legislature.
” Shhhhh, you might be on to something with your super majority. Yes it is a different thing if 50% plus one of my fellow Ohioans want something banned than if 90% of them want something banned. The tricky thing is where to draw the line 3 fiths (60%,) 2 thirds, 3 quarter? What would be a super majority?