Some question use of ballot box to settle issues like gay rights

The Seattle Times ^ | Monday, February 27, 2006 | Lornet Turnbull

[Sopater]

The issue seemed ripe for victory.

In 1997, a gay-advocacy group called Hands Off Washington placed on the state ballot an initiative that would have extended workplace protections to gays and lesbians.

It was a calculated risk: When voters are asked to determine rights and protections — whether for immigrants or minorities — they seldom are in a giving mood.

Nonetheless, group members were confident, buoyed by polls showing strong support for workplace protections for gays and emboldened by the failure of opponents the previous year to collect enough signatures to put gay-rights and gay-adoption bans on the ballot.

The gamble proved a disaster. Voters trounced Initiative 677 and sent its backers into oblivion.

Now, almost a decade later, Washington voters likely will be asked again to consider protections based on sexual orientation. A proposed referendum by Tim Eyman would overturn a statewide gay-rights measure passed by lawmakers and signed into law by the governor last month.

And as forces line up on either side of the referendum, new attention is being focused on the practice of putting rights and protections to a public vote.

Some legal and political experts say it's inappropriate. Voters can be arbitrary, they say, as reluctant to take away rights as they are to grant them. And they may be too easily swayed or too burdened by biases to make fair decisions on matters crucial to people's lives.

"After all, what are rights if they can be voted up one year and down the next?" said Brian Silver, a Michigan State University professor of political science.

[Sopater]

What's wrong with the voters deciding? What is democracy all about?

[mlc9852]

Give voters a chance to deny sexual perverts "rights" and chances are the voters will indeed deny those perceived rights. Doesn't seem like a problem to me.

[Draco]

What's wrong you ask?

What is wrong is that you in Washington keep coming to the wrong answer, that's what.[/sarc]

[Millee]

Because silly, only the courts know what is best for us. /s

[ClearCase_guy]

Bingo.

The ballot box is the right way to solve these questions -- just so long as the right side wins. Then the decision is binding. But, if the wrong side gets more votes, then we know that voting on it was the wrong idea in the first place.

[Coronal]

Because our rights as Americans and human beings are protected by the Constitution and are not subject to popular vote. We can argue about what those rights are, but they are not subject to majority rule, short of amending the Constitution.

[mlc9852]

Which rights are you talking about?

[weegee]

The left doesn't believe in democracy. Ever hear them gripe after an election that the public is too stupid to vote "properly"?

Political correctness is not about debate. It is about despots making the liberal agenda the dominant viewpoint. Wouldn't want to be guilty of thought crime. That's what happens when people are free to think for themselves.

[weegee]

If they look to "international law"...

[Captain Rhino]

Lib/Dems only like democracy when the vote comes out their way. Otherwise, they are just as eager to subvert it as the communists and the Islamofascists.

(To be fair, when we lose the vote/power, Republicans don't like democracy all that much either. The difference is we don't go around badmouthing the institution and attempting to philosophically subvert it. I think the people understand this distinction. All we have to do is just make sure they are reminded when they vote that there is a difference between those who stand for democracy in good times and in bad and those who are ready to throw it over in pursuit of power when they don't get their way. And remind them that this difference counts.)

[Galveston Grl]

Liberal judges are supposed to decide. Not voters or their representatives.

[longtermmemmory]

This is about a chosen behavior which is being publicly funded.

If an employer does not want to fund recreational sex cohabitation is should be his right to do so.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"Because our rights as Americans and human beings are protected by the Constitution and are not subject to popular vote. We can argue about what those rights are, but they are not subject to majority rule, short of amending the Constitution."

Exactly. Those rights are not up for vote. This is a state law change to give certain benefits to homosexual couples that are enjoyed by married couples.

The reason it is a referendum rather than from the legislature is that the law makers know this is a deadly cultural issue and do not want to take sides.

So they put it to the voters.

Considering that 2004 marked many states voting to define marriage as heterosexual only, I am not sanguine about the homosexual advocates' chances of getting this to pass.

The states have the right to ban all homosexual activity under the pain of death, if they wish; recent erroneous Supreme Court ruling notwithstanding.

Enforcement is quite another issue. Even though I oppose homosexual activity, (on the grounds it is harmful to the individuals involved) I think passing a law you can't enforce is foolish.

Opposition to homosexuality comes from our Christian heritage. Do we wish to continue this tradition or give it up? These moral choices in a nonreligious government with a mixture of Christian and non-Christian voters are difficult to resolve.

[MarxSux]

And we'll just keep on voting on it until the correct answer is reached. After that, it's hands off.

[longtermmemmory]

Not necessary to have opposition based on Christianity.

There are more than enough reasons to oppose homosexuality that are 100% NOT based on christianity.

In fact the homosexuals push the meme which holds that opposition to homosexual behavior is ONLY based on christianity.

Homosexuals were being stoned to death loooooooooooooooong before christianity was formed.

[Beckwith]

They'd rather have queer judges decide.

[ClearCase_guy]

In the movie "Key Largo" Edward G. Robinson explain that in Chicago "We count up the votes. And if we don't like it, we count 'em again, until we get something we do like."

He was a gangster. Today, he'd just pass as a Dem.

[Sopater]

Because our rights as Americans and human beings are protected by the Constitution

Good answer... but we're not talking about "human rights", we're talking about "gay rights". The discussion is focused on whether or not a "society" wants to condone and/or advance the agenda based on a risky lifestyle choice. A choice that has risks that are not merely limited to the individuals involved, but to the society in general. Thanks my question...

[RobbyS]

Argue about what? It should be about the language of the Constitution and there is nothing in the Constitution that relates to such domestic institutions as marriage? If you are talking about equity among classes of individuals, then the democratic process is better suited to the determination of what is equitable than a court case.