So, California’s social conservatives got their way: a gay marriage ban will be on November’s ballot, along with many other state-based issues, like transit taxes to cut back on ruinous congestion. And, as Neal Broverman reminds us, the States’ democracy makes it easier to change a state’s constitution than tend to civic duties.
Guess which measure has better odds of passing? If you said “the anti-gay initiative,” you would be correct. That outcome is not based on an assumption that most Californians are homophobic, but the fact that it will take just 51% of the electorate to write discrimination into our Constitution and a whopping 67% to invest in our infrastructure and environment.
…
Our federal Constitution is virtually immune to the whims of the public; it takes a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to propose a constitutional amendment, and then it must be ratified by three-quarters of the states.No state makes it that hard to change its own constitution…
Forethought may not have been our forefathers’ strong point…
chandler in lasvegas
Forethought MAY have been our Forefathers’s strong point because Civil Rights should never rest with the simple majority. Do you think Lincoln would have freed the salves if 51% would have voted for Slave Owner’s Rights?
State Constitutions are TOO easy to change. I would like the SCOTUS to extend their standard (abolish state regs) made under a lesser standard that 67%. It levels the playing field.
andy
Hey, Let’s get 51% of the population to vote to subjugate the other 49%, or better yet in the name of population control exterminate them. Point is Democracy with out checks is idiocy, which is why minorities need to be protected, IT”S THE AMERICAN WAY! What do you think the electoral system is about.. it’s to protect the interest of the small state where no one lives and keep in check the power of the large populated states. Just sayin.
l
Wow! 51% of the appallingly low voter turnout is a very small percentage of the voting age population.
ksu499
If you are talking about CA’s founding fathers, yes, shortsighted. If you are talking about Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Gwinnett, et. al., they were very farsighted in making the Constitution hard to alter. You don’t want to give the basic foundations of government over to the whims of a temporary majority. All you have to do is to live in one of those states where 50% plus one of the voters can decide if you have any civil rights or not and you’ll understand.
emb
The whole notion of holding civil rights issues up for plebicite is preposterous and wrong-headed. The Supreme Court told the southern states that separate-but-equal was not OK; a popular vote in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi would probably not have concurred.
Of course, the liklihood of the current incarnation of the Supremes making a similar decision regarding homos and marriage (or even deciding Brown or Loving (miscegenation) the same way) is extremely small.
Doomed is what we are.
Rusty Wyatt
You can’t have it both ways. You cannot complain that it is too easy to pass discriminatory measures AND difficult to pass positive ones. Who is to judge what is bad and good – where is that line? Constitutions should be hard to change. The federal government was setup by the founding fathers of this country correctly. Constitutions should be immune from the constant ebb and flow of public opinion. Opinions that flesh out to be true over time can be written into those important documents in due time. Proposing and attempting to pass constitutional amendments on a whim is crazy and BAD government.
That being said, it is truly sad that the far right-wing choose to to fight gay marriage by forcing a public vote on individuals rights. We’re supposed to avoid tyranny of the majority. Fortunately amendments to constitutions can be overturned by future amendments to the same constitution. In many cases, those 51% majorities in the states won’t take very long to flip in the opposite direction of public opinion. When that happens they will start the process of amending their constitutions to remove blatantly discriminatory additions.
Qjersey
The rights of the majority do NOT outweigh the rights of the minority.
Chis
@Rusty Wyatt:
It is easy. Declare every change void which is a violation of someone’s basic rights.
chuck
Tyrany of the masses was exactly what Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were worried about.
chuck
Correction: That should have been a double n in tyranny.