There has been much talk suggesting that the marriage vote in the New York statehouse was a democratic triumph. But even in New York, there was reason for Democrats to believe that this was their safest bet, that putting it to the voters wouldn’t have worked out for gay-marriage advocates.
Pollster John McLaughlin, who is based in his native New York, raises the question: “If they had brought the gay marriage bill to a public referendum, I don’t think it would have passed.” He continues:
No state has ever passed it via referendum. Even California saw Proposition 8 fail. The fact that Governor Cuomo pushed it through without a referendum, which would have taken two consecutive years for the legislature to authorize, just shows that he and his allies were concerned that it wouldn’t pass — especially if it faced a two-year public debate.
Gay marriage often over-polls its approval levels. People sense the media is pro-gay-marriage and either say they are for it or undecided, when they are not. Prop 8 failed due to majority African American, Latino, and Asian American opposition. A New York referendum would have been very important. Now we’ll never know.
When did the New York Assembly vote on the amended bill?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEarlier the same day that the NYS Senate passed the bill.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes New York law allow both Houses of the Legislature to consider the same bill at the same time, rather than one follow the other?
Plus, the legislative history on the Assembly website does not reflect the Assembly vote on the amendments, but lists "returned to Assembly" following the Senate vote.
Have some corners been cut, or does the Assembly website have it wrong?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere were really 2 separate bills. The Assembly passed legislation allowing same sex couples to marry (A8354) about a week before the Senate voted.
Many republicans in the senate argued that the bill needed stronger religious protections before it could be brought to the floor for a vote. The Assembly, the Senate, and the Governor agreed to language for these changes and introduced a separate bill or "chapter amendment" as it is called in NY (A8520). The Assembly passed that bill Thursday or Friday of last week and then the Senate passed both bills Friday night.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProposition 8 passed.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePut everything to the vote. The Iraq/Afghanistan/Lybia/Yemen wars. Tax increases on the top 1%. The Surge (TM). Pot legalization. Football stadiums. Gambling. Whether we should increase or decrease social security benefits for grandma! The speed limit! The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills!
Representative democracy is a crime against freedom!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe are a representative democracy. In most instances, decision-making isn't voted on by the entire population. Instead we vote for representatives who then vote on particular proposals. Yes, some states do bring particular issues to referendum votes but it is the exception, not the rule. To claim that this should be voted on by referendum is disingenous on your part.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe should have put Bush-Gore 2000 to a democratic vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"We are a representative democracy. In most instances, decision-making isn't voted on by the entire population. Instead we vote for representatives who then vote on particular proposals."
Yes. A vote was taken. But the legislature did not follow its rules of 72 hour notice of a bill, nor did it allow any contrary discussion of the bill.
Democracy at work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is no such rule that applies to NY State. The 72-hour notice applies only to "Committee presentations":
"d. Committee presentations. The chair of a committee may invite inter-
ested persons to offer a presentation for a given amount of time on a
bill on the meeting agenda with notice provided to the ranking member no
less than 72 hours in advance. Where a committee chair makes such an
invitation, the ranking member shall be afforded an equal number of
speakers who may speak for an equal amount of time. In addition, the
ranker, without consent of the chair, shall be able to schedule 3 com-
mittee presentations with notice provided to the chair at least 72 hours
in advance. The chair shall be afforded an equal number of speakers who
may speak for an equal amount of time."
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love how for years conservatives have been telling us same-sex marriage rights were illegitimate because they were being imposed on the people by unelected activist judges. So now, when the people's elected representatives pass this law, it's illegitimate because it wasn't put to a popular vote? Why do we even have a legislative branch of government if the only legitimate way to legislate is by popular referendum?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is just a prediction, but I expect the first time or two a same-sex marriage proponents win a referendum, we'll be hearing how that was illegitimate too. Then, if some other mechanism is used to make decisions about same-sex marriage, it will only be legitimate until it makes the "wrong" decision, and so on.
Union supporters don't like what happened in Wisconsin, I don't like what the Democrats did to pass Obamacare, and Ms. Lopez et al don't like this new law in New York. Elected officials make polarizing, messy decisions that displease a lot of people all the time, but that doesn't mean those decisions are illegitimate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat goes around, comes around. If NY residents really are against gay marriage, which I think they are, then Republican legislators who allowed this fiasco to come about in the way it did will pay a heavy price in 2012. Across the river in NJ is a governor who will have a tremendous influence in shaping the thinking of those NY Republicans in the next election. Look for a lot of primary challengers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If NY residents really are against gay marriage, which I think they are..."
"Gay marriage supported by record number of New York voters: 56% according to new poll"
External Link
Last I checked, 56% represents a majority.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice try, but your poll is almost 6 months old and the sample was taken based on all New York voters. A poll taken by QEV Analytics, a public opinion research firm in Washington D.C., just before the vote last week, showed that 57% of REGISTERED voters in NY opposed gay marriage. If you are going to Google, at least support your bias with current and more meaningful (the registered voters) information.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile several conservative opponents of same-sex marriage have complained about the lack of a referendum, no one has bothered to explain why that was necessary. It is true, of course, that many states have had referenda on banning gay marriage. But New York passed its bill through the same process that it uses to pass nearly all other measures relating to New York state, many of them incredibly important, deeply controversial, and intensely personal to state residents. Neither Ms. Lopez nor Ms. Gallagher (the two most consistent opponents of gay marriage on this site) has explained what makes gay marriage so different from literally every other piece of legislation that a legislature might pass that it can only be passed through a referendum.
If gay marriage is somehow so singularly important that its legality can only be determined by referenda, I wonder how Ms. Lopez would feel about the many states that have restricted gay marriage through the normal legislative process, without asking the direct assent of state residents. Take Texas:
External Link
Or take DOMA, which was passed by the Congress without ever directly asking voters what they thought. If it is only efforts to allow (rather than restrict) gay marriage that require a referendum, I'd again ask Ms. Lopez why that is the case.
Referenda and ballot initiatives are meant to run parallel to the normal legislative process, not to supplant the work of the state legislature. Even if a New York gay marriage referendum might have failed, that is no different than saying that Wisconsin voters might not have reined in public sector unions through a referendum, though their duly-elected representatives did. That does not matter. Voters in Wisconsin can express their displeasure with the GOP by voting them out when the get the next chance, and voters in New York will have a similar chance to weigh in on the legislators who approved gay marriage. Ms. Lopez may not like the outcome, but complaining about the process without providing any explanation for her gripes smacks of sore loserisms.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHilarious. The same people who confidently pronounce how obsolete the traditional view of marriage is object to having let the people of New York vote on it. Not so confident you would have won, are you.
Now that the New York legislature has acted, voters do have a choice about what to do. At the very least the Republicans who voted for SSM need to be defeated. The Conservative Party needs to withhold support from smoke-filled room Republicans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI well believe it. And I think this latest is a bad law.
But government by referendum is a bad idea, as California demonstrates generally. It's still a bad idea for those issues where the referendum would go my way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReferendum doesn't really make any difference, at least in Massachusetts. We vote for something and the legislature ignores the will of the people, doing what it wants. Until the voting public's anger reaches critical mass, the legislative dictatorship will continue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's not entire true, REB. While I agree that the Beacon Hill B*****d Bunch loves to nullify referendums if they can get away with it, they sometimes are forced to accept the results. Question 2 from 2008 is an excellent example: I'm sure the B4 was planning to nullify, but it passed with a 65% supermajority. And even though Martha "Queen Bee" Coakley tried her best to get the towns to ban it individually, she has not had much success at all overrulling the will of the people in that regard.
Definitely a few other referendums that have managed to stick by and large. Althogh I keep hearing the B4 wants to raise the signature limit to get something on the ballot as an end run around this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse