Minnesota Is Making Me Nervous
Apparently, Republicans are desperate to get a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage through the Democratic-controlled state senate. 365gay:
Yes, it's a Democratic-controlled body, but only narrowly. The good news, I think, is that Democrats have a reasonable chance to increase their majority in November, as well as possibly recapture the state house. So if Democrats can hold Republicans off until then, we may be out of the woods there. And make no mistake, Democrats would be fools to let this amendment be on the ballot. These sorts of things only increase Republican turnout.
Senate Republicans are quickly extinguishing any doubt of their commitment to prohibit same-sex marriage. In recent weeks, members of their caucus have introduced at least eight separate constitutional amendments to do just that.
Despite how it might appear, though, it's not necessarily a case of overkill. Republicans in the DFL-controlled Senate say the tactic was necessary to keep the issue from dropping off the radar screen at the Capitol.
The explanation resides in the arcane byways of the Senate's rules.
Last year, the full Senate rejected an attempt by Sen. Michele Bachmann, chief proponent of the gay marriage ban, to force a floor vote on her amendment. When Bachmann tried to force another vote recently, Senate Democrats invoked a rule they say prohibited a second vote on the same measure.
In response, Senate Republicans introduced a cluster of gay marriage amendments, each with only slight differences in wording. That may allow them to continue forcing votes on the amendment, keeping up pressure on wavering Democrats who oppose gay marriage but are sticking with Democratic leadership in denying Republicans a floor debate.
Yes, it's a Democratic-controlled body, but only narrowly. The good news, I think, is that Democrats have a reasonable chance to increase their majority in November, as well as possibly recapture the state house. So if Democrats can hold Republicans off until then, we may be out of the woods there. And make no mistake, Democrats would be fools to let this amendment be on the ballot. These sorts of things only increase Republican turnout.
posted by Abram | 9:18 AM
2 Comments:
What's wrong with letting the people decide what their own constitution should say? I mean, do we have to be so crass as to deny the people that right? It's awfully undemocratic for you to say that the people should be deprived of that chance just because you're concerned about "turnout" issues.
Why should my marriage be something people vote on? That's what's crass here. And it's disingeuous for you to ignore that Republicans are primarily pushing this issue to affect turnout.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with letting the people decide what their constitution says, in general. But that doesn't mean Democrats should let Republicans put any amendment they want on the ballot. If Republicans want that right in Minnesota, they should win more elections there.
My question to you is this: how exactly is denying future voters the right to change their minds more democratic?
Post a Comment
<< Home