Washington signs same-*** marriage bill into law

[Anthony91]

http://www.king5.com/news/cities/oly...139211664.html

Good to hear, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if this goes to a vote this fall.

[shermbodius]

I am not a pro or anti gay marriage person, but this should have been put to a vote before the citizens before just pencil whipped into law. Now the King county Lawyers will be making hand over fist with all the legal rebuttals and such. Washington State has been under Democratic rule for far too long.

[Anthony91]

I am not a pro or anti gay marriage person, but this should have been put to a vote before the citizens before just pencil whipped into law.

I've always been pro-gay marriage, and while I appreciate our legislatures' forwardness and eagerness to get this through, I can't help but agree with you on that. Even then, I don't think the outcome would be much different, if only for a narrow yes/no margin. But on the other hand, I do like the forwardness that this happened within the Washington state government.

[Zorro C9]

Why should this, in comparison to any other issue, have been put to a referendum?

[Ordie]

I am not a pro or anti gay marriage person, but this should have been put to a vote before the citizens.

Why should this, in comparison to any other issue, have been put to a referendum?

Do you think the Civil Rights Act would've passed a vote before the citizens in 1965?

[shermbodius]

Do you think the Civil Rights Act would've passed a vote before the citizens in 1965?

I still think that as a Representative Republic, Washingtonians should have had there say. I don't know, wasn't alive at the time.

[Sarig]

Why should this, in comparison to any other issue, have been put to a referendum?

It is indeed perhaps an excellent example of why a majority vote might not be democratic, but majority tyranny.

[szr]

It is indeed perhaps an excellent example of why a majority vote might not be democratic, but majority tyranny.

Who's the arbiter that decides when which is which? What happens when the People vote for something other than what the arbiter desires? Does the arbiter send the People back to the polls to keep voting until they get it right? Does the arbiter simply dispose of the undesirable election results and lay down his decree?

[Ordie]

Who's the arbiter that decides when which is which?

The Judicial system.

[szr]

The Judicial system.

Let's see if you still believe that the next time the Supreme Court is stacked with the SCJ nominees of a Republican administration.

[Spartan10k]

I am not a pro or anti gay marriage person, but this should have been put to a vote before the citizens before just pencil whipped into law. Now the King county Lawyers will be making hand over fist with all the legal rebuttals and such. Washington State has been under Democratic rule for far too long.

I think personally it's one of those issues for individual states to decide in whatever manner they see fit.

[Ordie]

Let's see if you still believe that the next time the Supreme Court is stacked with the SCJ nominees of a Republican administration.

I think SCJ are more apolitical the longer they serve in that capacity.
For example, GOP President Ford nominee, John Paul Stevens, was considered on the liberal side of the court. Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, both Reagan nominees, have been the swing vote.