Gay Marriage Ban Fails in Idaho

The initiative process is antithetical to a Representative Republic (so why do I love it so ;'}

I hated the initiative process when I lived in FL. The south FL anti-gun idiots used it to get anti-gun amendments added to the state constitution, and succeeded in having a waiting period amendment passed. The dumbass northeast yankee retirees who make up most of the voters in that miserable state have made it a far cry from the mostly rural and very conservative southern state where I was born and lived so much of my life. I got out before it got as bad as it is now, but the people of ID don't have many places they can go after the CA liberals infest that state.

That same thing has happened in most of the western states which used to be the land of conservatism. CO, MT, NM, AZ,NV, and even Mormon Utah are becoming more liberal every year. AFAIK WY is about the only western state that has so far escaped the invasion of the body snatchers from CA and the northeast, and when I was there last spring I was told by several separate WY natives that CA and eastern millionaire enviro-whackjobs are buying up ranchland in that state as fast as they can.

Et tu Idaho?

Isnt 14 out of 21 two thirds?

That's 14 to 21. Two-fifths to three-fifths. The pro-amendment side needed 24 for 2/3.

Yes, Idaho does have legislation against gay marriage, but recent events have proved that they can be meaningless. In light of the actions of the Sup Courts of Alaksa (???)Hawaii, Vermont, and Mass, to not have an Amendment is an invitation for state courts to impose gay marriage or civil unions on the state (and the 'or civil unions' part is important, as possibly most states would choose to be consistent and reject any legal recognition of gay unions no matter what euphemism is used to describe them). So taking preemptive action to stop judges is definitely not pandering.

All of these 14 state Senators who voted against this measure are fully aware of this too, so those voting against this measure must fall into one of the following categories: (1) They for some unknown reason have faith that their courts won't act like those of the other states I mentioned. (2) They expect and are desirous of a judicial imposition of gay marriage or civil unions onto the state. (3) They in fact oppose gay marriage/civil unions, but also don't have faith in the courts, but put other considerations above this issue like not wanting bad press from likes of the NYTimes and Today Show, and thus are willing to sell out their contituents.

Personally, I can't really fathom not letting the people have their say. This is especially true for those who claim to only oppose the Amendment because existing state law makes it unnecessary. I've already pointed out the very questionable nature of that position, but anyway, this makes no sense for another reason; if one supports the state law, then why would you oppose letting the people confirm, ratify, reinforce, and make more permanent the very same sentiment with a more powerful instrument? Could it be that they secretly hope for the Courts to overturn the legislation?

And if its because one holds the inconsistent 'gay marriage - no, civil unions - yes' position, then why don't they pass legislation instituting civil unions in the state? What are they afraid of?

One of the Republican opponents also voiced opposition on the grounds that more important matters need to be addressed. WTF? Passing this measure puts it to the people via a direct vote, the legislature's part would be almost completely over.

And if its fear of Idaho getting a black eye from the press, then why not repeal the existing legislation banning gay marriage, whose sentiments are almost precisely the same as the apparently beyond-the-pale Amendment. Why not send a stronger message that the mainstream media will love, announcing this reddest of Red state's arrival into enlightenment?

The arrogance of these 14 Senators, especially the 8 Republicans, is quite surprising. They should be at least be honest about their motives.

It would be nice if the voters punish this arrogance come primary time, but incumbency is a powerful thing, so they'll probably be back. So lets just see what happens when some Vermont couple with a civil union certificate, or some gay Mass couple with a marriage certificate starts court proceedings in the state to demand their unions be recognized. Unless the people or Governor (don't know who picks them in Idaho) have done an exceptional job of picking judges who don't think of themselves as kings, then an Idaho court will do for some of the Senators by fiat what they can't do in a fair democratic fight. Then lets' see how these 14 senators react. If they still refuse to let the people rectify the situation, then their true motives will have been undeniably revealed.

Yeah, didn't Montana elect a pro-abortion governor last year? Wasn't he the same guy that almost beat Senator Burns in 2000?

But still, ballot initiatives are on balance a good thing, IMO. Just look at what liberal California has done in the last 11 years; ban public benefits for illegal aliens, ban racial preferences, ban bilingual education, and ban gay marriage, all in the midst of Democratic dominance of the state.

As the politicians are clearly more liberal than the electorate at least on specific issues, the inititiave process may be the only path to victory in an increasing number of states. The entire establishment of Ohio, including the GOP, opposed that state's initiative banning gay marriage and civil unions, yet it passed with over 60% of the vote. This particular measure would no doubt easily pass in Idaho, but its unfortunate that the path is blocked by as few as 12 state Senators.

What's next? Legalized polygamy, prostitution...child molestation? The browning of America continues....

Many thanks for your thoughts and insight. I rather suspect that most of those 14 state senators will be voted out come next election.

My daughter and husband live in N. Idaho. They were unable, by regulation, to build additional structures on their acreage, so at the next election they voted the regulating board out of existence. Smart voters!

Unless there's a reason they can't make it illegal without an amendment,

Oh they can make it illegal alright, but state supreme court justices can invalidate any law the legislature passes.

The only thing the courts can't declare unconstitutional is the constitution itself, and that's why an amendment is the only real answer at both the state and federal levels. If we don't get a federal marriage protection amendment passed and ratified it's just a matter of time before the USSC opens up the door to sodomite marriage in every state.

I never thought of that. Clever point.

Easy answer on this one, get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage started out as a religious ceremony and that is all it should be today. Come to think of it, if the government has anything at all to do with marriage is not that a violation the separation of church and state.

That's not a feasible solution. Even if it were, it would not be preferable as it would cede to the Left/Gay lobby the idea that's it somehow violates the Constitution for people to choose to confer upon traditional marriage a special place in society. This is of course absurd, as not a single sentence in the Constitution was ever written or framed with the intent that some Court would construe it to require something like gay marriage. Its clearly a case of judges interpreting out of thin air new rights, of arriving at a conclusion their ideology demanded of them yet which can't be won democratically by these judges' political allies.

And insofar as the govt has a part in perpetuating society, the government should grant certain legal rights, benefits, obligations, duties, and status to marriage, as its value to society is beyond question. This has nothing to do with separation of church and state, which itself is as twisted take on the Constitution where Judges have read the language that forbids Congress from establishing a religion as giving them the right to forbid a prayer from being said over school speakers at a high school football game in Texas.

You're right of course that Amendments are the only apparent defense against Courts.

However, if the Sup Court imposed gay marriage/civil unions then the President and Congress could simply refuse to enforce the decision. They could develop some testicular fortitude and just say no, and draw a line in the sand, and say the Courts have finally gone too far. They could themselves deem the Court decision to be w/o any basis in the Constitution, and instead to be a transparent substitution of a far-left political ideology in place of sound constitutional reasoning, and judicial activism of the worst kind. They could refuse to be complicit letting the Courts get away with imposing by fiat what had been decisively rejected by the proper political and democratic channels.

Really, what could happen? The Courts couldn't enforce such a decision w/o Executive or Legislative subservience and compliance.

I think that if this 'conservative' President and 'conservative' Congress would stand its ground then the people would support them. If they were diligent, then the people would realize that this really was a case of the Courts doing the dirty work of the far left, of doing for them things that couldn't be implemented legislatively in a fair democratic fight, of imposing on them things they had already rejected at the ballot box.

If it created some sort of Constitutional crisis then so be it. If it creates a real public debate about the role of the Courts then that would be a good thing. It could shatter forever this belief that the Sup Court is the ultimate and final arbiter of all things Constitutional, and that it has the right to order the other two branches around. This would only be radical insofar as to illustrate how far we've strayed from what the Founders and early Presidents thought about this. Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln, to name a few, did not accept Judicial supremacy. If we could get back to that, then it would be a good thing indeed.

A good start towards this would be for the Senate to pass the Court-stripping legislation passed by the House last year. This removed from the federal courts the right to hear challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, but it has not even been brought up by Frist yet.