A thread in the comments over at An Inch at a Time, has prompted me to pull my comments and post them here.
Someone over there suggested that same-sex marriage go to a vote 'by the people' (my quotes) in Vermont because surely it would win here. And my unvarnished responses are:
No, no, and again NO. We don't want a lot of outside money pouring into Vermont, thank you. This state is small enough that we can buttonhole our representatives. We can take over the state house and we do. We can write our representatives and then see them at town meeting.
There are enough looneytunes here that such a measure could be voted down and then where would we be?
The opposition is preaching exactly that: have a referendum. It is not the way to go nor is it the Vermont way to go.
We really have a better chance in the legislature. It's just that we have this dumb governor. The thought is that by announcing this, he can get the Republicans to vote NO therefore creating an override veto proof vote.
This thought persisted and I wrote again:
Another big reason for not having a referendum in Vermont: IT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. It's just a ploy of the Republicans to get referendums on the ballot. Again, I say, no, no, and again, no, to a referendum. You cannot decide civil rights of a minority by a vote of the majority. That's why we have elected representatives.
(If this were to go to a referendum, I think it would lose despite support.)
Vermont has no provisions for referenda and may it stay that way.
I suggest that to understand the Vermont mentality one read, 'Fast Lane on a Dirt Road,' by Joe Sherman.
Vermonters are inherently conservative and this sort of debate forces confrontation in way that undermines the prevalent, 'You do your thing and I'll do mine.' Up until 1992 when Dean was governor, Vermont was solidly Republican in the presidential race. The political change is largely from flat-landers (such as myself) moving up there.
I doubt this will make any difference but maybe now that NH has just voted through marriage for all, the Vermont House might wake up to the fact that tourism dollars are going to stay across the border. It's really crass to say this but perhaps money is the only way to get through to some of them who are on the fence.
[graphic lifted from An Inch at a Time, too]
3 comments:
Basic rights should NEVER be put to a vote.
We chose a representative democracy -- it works well or at least better than doing everything through referenda. Here in Colorado way too much gets put to direct vote and we have ended up with totally contradictory laws which were enacted in the same set of "ballot initiatives".
Being a flatlander who has spent a lot of summer time (and some in winter too) in Vermont and knows the state, I couldn't agree with you more. I was also a Californian for ten years and ballot propositions have taken over that state in a really unhealthy way.
There are many ways to "let the people speak" and government by representation is one of them.
And you may be right that in the end, money will speak. It's not the moral victory we may want, but it may open the way to a moral change. Ironic though that NH would be ahead of Vermont on this, given NH's history in all kinds of areas.
Post a Comment