Thus, the results of yesterday's referendum in Maine have national significance inasmuch as they lay bare the political strategy of homosexual activists like Tim Gill ("They won't know what hit them."-- The Atlantic). In sum, it's a little disingenuous to contend that the so-called legislative route is/was, pardon the pun, out in the open, as is implied in this TIME story. After Maine Gay-Marriage Defeat, Activists Look Ahead - TIME From the article:
In order to counter that argument [that homosexual marriage is being "foisted" upon Americans by "out-of-touch" judges], [attorney Mary] Bonauto and other gay-marriage activists in Maine who began organizing to press for gay marriage there decided to avoid taking the issue to court. Instead, they set about electing lawmakers who were friendly to their cause two years ago, and this year successfully convinced the legislature to become the nation's first to establish gay marriage by statute, rather than by decree. "Frankly, we had heard the criticisms about going the court route, and so we said, 'Fine, we'll go to the legislature,'" says Bonauto. "And it has been an incredible campaign."I'd say it's one thing to present an issue/platform squarely to voters and let them vote, and another to simply get people elected who covertly share your agenda. The latter looks more like a coup than republican government.
4 comments:
Where, exactly, are you drawing the "covertly" part from? All of the state legislators who voted for gay marriage in Maine were elected. I would wager, in point of fact, that they were elected by substantially more voters than casted ballots on Prop 1, off-year turn-out being what it is.
Those voters had a chance to educate themselves on the stances of the people they were voting for. Given that all of these people ended up voting for gay marriage publically, anyway, it seems highly unlikely that they would try to hide their support, beforehand.
Anyway, supporting candidates for office who share your views on the issues and having them duly elected by the people of the state?
That doesn't actually look much like a coup.
Did you read "They won't see what hit them"? That is the basis for the "covert" reference.
That being said, all that Tim Gill and Co are doing is legal, so "coup" is probably a bit of hyperbole.
One response to your logic appears here.
Thanks for the response Burr. Folks can follow your link to see my sur-response.
Post a Comment