Skip to main content

View Diary: The colossal failure of National Organization for Marriage (186 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i had heard that Minnesota... (0+ / 0-)

    ...stopped the constitutional ban.  the next step, whether theirs or generally, was going to be putting it to a public vote.

    I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

    by blue drop on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:17:03 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think so. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue drop

      The amendment WAS stopped by the public vote. It originated in the legislature, passed out of the since retired GOP majority.

      If marriage equality moves forward, like NY, it will be by a law coming out of the legislature.

      Interest groups will still need money though. Especially on a state like MN that will probably be tight vote.

      I don't know if MN has a ballot repeal process like WA, ME, MD.

      Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

      by Scott Wooledge on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:45:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  now that i see the words, pretty sure you're right (0+ / 0-)
        If marriage equality moves forward, like NY, it will be by a law coming out of the legislature.
        i remembered hearing something about the next step and thought it was putting it to the public to vote on the issue.  it was more likely what you said, that the next step would be a legislative effort.

        I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

        by blue drop on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:12:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  MN doesn't have direct ballot referendum (0+ / 0-)

          process, according to this site. So the only way to create marriage equality there is via a vote of the legislature, or a pronouncement from their high court.

          It would only go to the people if the legislature voted to amend the Constitution to deliver it, which seems unnecessary. (If they have the votes to amend the constitution, they'd have the votes to pass a law.

          But then, maybe votes for an amendment could be easier to wrangle. Legislators could, correctly, claim they are not voting FOR gay marriage, but merely voting to let the people vote on it. Hmmmm.... Interesting new dynamic, now that we can win a popular vote.

          Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

          by Scott Wooledge on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 11:45:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site