Same-Sex Marriage and Direct Democracy . . .

by Little Miss Attila on August 4, 2010

I’m with Patterico, here: I favor gay marriage, but think the change should not be led by the courts; there is often too much blowback when these matters are led by judges (and justices). Also, they tend to color outside the lines.

{ 1 trackback }

Twitter Trackbacks for Same-Sex Marriage and Direct Democracy . . . | Little Miss Attila [littlemissattila.com] on Topsy.com: August 4, 2010 at 2:26 pm

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

ponce August 4, 2010 at 3:25 pm: Maybe we should let “the people” vote on whether Muslims can build mosques in America.

Reply
Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian August 4, 2010 at 3:25 pm: The tyranny of the majority means that only the courts can do it.

Reply
Texan99 August 4, 2010 at 3:33 pm: I’m with Joy. Although I hear Cynthia’s point about the tyranny of the majority, in the long run it doesn’t work for the court’s to impose a social revolution this broad. It doesn’t work for abortion, either (pro or con), or for many other social changes that would be dear to my heart but are prevented by the tyranny of the majority. It just delays the time when a social accommodation can be reached and leaves the electorate at each others’ throats in the meantime.

I realize it’s easy for me to say this, since no one is preventing me from marrying. But I am on the minority side of the issue when it comes to abortion and many other issues, so I’m not completely talking out of my hat.

Reply
Little Miss Attila August 4, 2010 at 4:08 pm: I’m still in the mushy middle–I remain with Tex99 this year, despite Cynthia’s charming motto of “now is good.” [ 😉 ] And Cynthia has paid some hard, hard dues WRT this issue. This is not a small matter.

And the fact is, there are a few racial issues that had to be decided by the courts, because people were not going to overcome their prejudices any other way.

But the courts constitute a really blunt instrument, and I would prefer that the nation as a whole work this out via consensus, provided it can do so within the next few years.

Fortunately, we’re ultimately pretty easygoing in CA. After all, we’ve got medical marijuana here.

Reply
Little Miss Attila August 4, 2010 at 4:09 pm: Um, that was a joke. Everyone on board?

Reply
ponce August 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm: Looks like Patterico’s commentors aren’t as enlightened as him and LMA.

Reply
Azmat Hussain August 5, 2010 at 9:39 am: Yeh right consensus, for starters “con- sense- us” means that you are going to con some sense into us. Which by definition means that you will have your way and make it look like that was the sensible thing to do. Your not fooling me Attila.

Reply
Leah August 8, 2010 at 2:26 pm: Thanks for linking to Patterico – he makes a very good point.

Reply