Comments on: “Who Cares?” http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2008/06/19/who-cares/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:46:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Tin Man http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2008/06/19/who-cares/comment-page-1/#comment-127106 Tin Man Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:41:11 +0000 http://www.tinmanic.com/?p=2840#comment-127106 It's disgustingly simple to amend the California constitution. It just requires a one-time majority vote by the public. Getting it on the ballot just requires signatures of 8% of the number of people who voted in the last gubernatorial election. This flies in the face of constitutional theory and makes one wonder why to even <i>have</i> a state constitution, but, oh well. I don't think the amendment's going to pass, though. It’s disgustingly simple to amend the California constitution. It just requires a one-time majority vote by the public. Getting it on the ballot just requires signatures of 8% of the number of people who voted in the last gubernatorial election. This flies in the face of constitutional theory and makes one wonder why to even have a state constitution, but, oh well.

I don’t think the amendment’s going to pass, though.

]]> By: ay http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2008/06/19/who-cares/comment-page-1/#comment-127105 ay Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:30:18 +0000 http://www.tinmanic.com/?p=2840#comment-127105 My last full year in Massachusetts was the academic year of 2003-04, which as we all know, is the year Massachusetts decided to <strike>ruin the American family</strike> legalize same-sex marriage. There was a huge uproar immediately, and since then, it's cooled and now it's something that is just, well, part of Bay State culture. I expect similar things in California -- though I don't know what the CA process is to change the constitution. In MA, it has to be passed at two constitutional conventions and then be passed by the voters -- and with time dragging on like that, the people of Massachusetts got used to it and stopped having a problem with it. (When the amendment that passed the first time and failed the second time failed, gay rights groups claimed it as a victory for obvious reasons, and the "pro-family" groups claimed it as a victory, too, saying, "Now we can get rid of this flawed amendment and write a whole new one!" I don't know if it ever happened, but now it's to the point that it wouldn't pass.) Proponents of same-sex marriage have to pick states carefully, though. MA and CA are perfect for it -- and also are the only two with universal healthcare, I believe (but very different approaches to it) -- and it will be interesting what other states -- if any -- will be the next to take marriage rights to court. My last full year in Massachusetts was the academic year of 2003-04, which as we all know, is the year Massachusetts decided to ruin the American family legalize same-sex marriage. There was a huge uproar immediately, and since then, it’s cooled and now it’s something that is just, well, part of Bay State culture.

I expect similar things in California — though I don’t know what the CA process is to change the constitution. In MA, it has to be passed at two constitutional conventions and then be passed by the voters — and with time dragging on like that, the people of Massachusetts got used to it and stopped having a problem with it.

(When the amendment that passed the first time and failed the second time failed, gay rights groups claimed it as a victory for obvious reasons, and the “pro-family” groups claimed it as a victory, too, saying, “Now we can get rid of this flawed amendment and write a whole new one!” I don’t know if it ever happened, but now it’s to the point that it wouldn’t pass.)

Proponents of same-sex marriage have to pick states carefully, though. MA and CA are perfect for it — and also are the only two with universal healthcare, I believe (but very different approaches to it) — and it will be interesting what other states — if any — will be the next to take marriage rights to court.

]]>