Amendment fun
The legislature split its understanding of the SJC yesterday - voting on the same-sex marriage ban, but not on the affordable health care initiative. Both are citizen initiatives, which needed two consecutive votes in the legislature to then be placed on the ballot. (Affordable health care already had one). What's interesting here is that both of these are bad initiatives, each one favored by one end of the political spectrum. And, that sadly, both are likely to pass if put before the people.
But first, a primer on how the Massachusetts initiative system works: First, you get ten signatures, submit your initiative to the Attorney General for validation (the crayon rule). Then you take a petition out and get a bunch of signatures. Now it goes to the legislature - they have to vote, as noted, in two consecutive sessions, but they only need 25% yea votes to pass (the leper rule). Then it goes on a ballot. It needs more "yes" votes than "no" votes, and 30% of the votes cast (the mob rule).
So it's pretty easy for an initiative to succeed if put before the people - because a number of folks might abstain (on the 2006 ballot, 6% abstained on Question 1, and about 11% on Questions 2 & 3), a lot might not show up (only 60% of registered voters showed up in 2006 (and only 80% of adults are registered to vote)).
Why are both of these bad, though?
The same sex marriage ban is bad - simply because government needs to be careful on its interaction with the bedroom. This initiative is, unfortunately, the logical next step in the battle - same sex marriage proponents need to get same sex marriage enshrined in law, and out of the wacky limbo state it is in, to take away the precedent argument (exercise for the reader: Argue the cases for polygamy, line marriages, and incest marriage using the current state of same sex marriage as a precedent). We shouldn't ban it, but we need a law here.
Affordable health care is not a right. And, in fact, we already have it; what advocates really want is the institution of the Dole, because that controls the mob's votes.
Update: The number of required signatures on a petition is 3% of the ballots cast for governor in the prior election; that currently means 66,594 signatures.





Comments
Marriage is sacred and between a man and a woman. Therefore, government interference with incest is unconscionable.
Further, marriage is sacred and between one man and one woman. For another woman to interfere and prevent the marrage of a man and a woman is unconscionable: we shouldn't say a man's mother can stop him from being married any more than we'd now say an adult woman's father can stop her from being married. Similarly, a man's wife should not stop him from beng able to get married.
Line marriages are harder and will have to wait.
(Also, your TypeKey setup doesn't work with plain HTML)
Posted by: Brian Sniffen
|
January 4, 2007 02:57 PM
Your spouse has specific implied rights. How do you see those rights interacting in a polygamous marriage?
(I could see a clear division for some rights in a multi-person marriage; in a polygamous marriage, it's harder).
Posted by: Andy
|
January 4, 2007 03:16 PM
I wonder what happens if two contradictory amendments go up for vote in the same election cycle and they both pass.
Posted by: lochinola
|
January 4, 2007 03:29 PM