Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Those Damn Legislative Activists.
Seyward Darby has a good analysis of some stupid anti-same-sex-marriage arguments being made in the context of a Maine restore-inequality initiative. Essentially, the situation in Maine is similar to that in California in 2008 -- similar arguments against SSM (in this case, in some cases by the same public relations firm) made by well-funded interests to a closely divided public.
This parity teaches a valuable lesson. We were often informed by pundits that the backlash against SSM in California was a distinctive feature of change created by judicial decisions. But, of course, it wasn't. Just as Anita Bryant's campaign against gay and lesbian rights was instigated by decisions made by elected local governments, not courts, opponents of same-sex marriage in Maine haven't abjured the initiative process or avoided making "divisive" arguments simply because it was a legislature, rather than a court, that announced a change in the status quo. Rhetoric about "judicial activists" can easily be changed to rhetoric about "[a] handful of politicians." And there's no good reason -- theoretical or empirical -- to expect otherwise. Decisions about whether to ligate for equal marriage rights should be driven about its likelihood of success, not on the myth that opposition can somehow be preempted if change is achieved in the "right" way. After all, it never can be according to its opponents anyway.
--Scott Lemieux
COMMENTS (2)
The entire debate about "activists" being responsible for this or that moral atrocity (which must now be reversed/undone by initiatives from "non-activist" conservative activists, lest civilization itself be lost!) is moronic on its face.
Any change to any status quo situation is always the result of "activism" by people who find that status quo unbearable, in some way. Whatever the issue -- taxation without representation, slavery, female suffrage, civil rights -- no change was going to happen unless and until "activists" made it happen. This is elementary politics, folks!
The conservative jihad against "activist judges", legislatures, etc. is nothing more than a smokescreen for their own brand of activism, which hopes to reverse the accomplishments of (at least) three of the aforementioned examples. The (stated) intent is to "restore" the pristine conditions which obtained at the country's founding -- when only white, property-owning males were actual citizens, and everyone else was chattel, who should Suck.On.This!
Posted by: Spazzman Spliff | October 23, 2009 2:12 AM
Considering that our esteemed Republican governor here in California vetoed several gay marriage bills passed by the legislature with the excuse that the issue needed to be decided by the courts, it's an even more fake excuse than it first sounds.
Hopefully the people fighting this ballot initiative in Maine are smarter than the idiots who were running the No on 8 campaign here in California, who decided that the best strategy was to run commercials that basically said, "It's okay to hate gay people as long as you let us get married!"
I still want my donations back from those morons.
Posted by: Mnemosyne | October 23, 2009 1:43 PM