August 5, 2004

EVER NOTICE ALL THE WEDGES CUT OUR WAY?:

Gay Marriage Ban in Mo. May Resonate Nationwide (Alan Cooperman, August 5, 2004, Washington Post)

"Sadly, I do think a lot of these state ballot initiatives will succeed despite our best efforts to stop them," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group.

Elated by the 71 percent to 29 percent vote in Missouri, opponents of same-sex marriage predicted that a dozen more states would approve constitutional bans by the end of the year.

"At weddings they used to say, 'Speak now or forever hold your peace.' This shows that the people, when given the opportunity, speak very clearly," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Missouri's referendum was the first opportunity for voters anywhere in the country to take a stand on the issue since Massachusetts began allowing same-sex couples to marry in May. More surprising than the margin of passage, which had been predicted by opinion polls, was the turnout of about 1.5 million voters, or 400,000 more than expected for a primary election.


What really has to scare Democrats is that the high turnout led to the rather rare defeat of an incumbent governor in his own primary.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 5, 2004 3:05 PM
Comments

I'm sure this has been noted by many others, but why exactly are all of these initiatives invariably referred to as "bans"? I don't see that word in the text...

Posted by: brian at August 5, 2004 3:12 PM

The passage of the gay marriage ban by MO should bode well for Bush in MO and in other states.
As for the governorship it is believed the GOP candidate would have had an easier time defeating the incumbent rather than the Dem than won the primary. So that may not be good news after all.

Posted by: AWW at August 5, 2004 3:45 PM

It's a ban on judicial activism. LIke that practiced by a King Country Judge yesterday. Local elections normally don't interest me, but I want to find out when this one is up for reelection so I can vote against it.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 5, 2004 5:30 PM

According the the (WA) Sec of State, he's up for election this fall (King Superior Court #43). Don't know if it's county-wide or by district. Notice that the candidate filing deadline was last Friday (7/30) and Judge Browning is unopposed. Coincidence? We report, you decide.

Wonder if Justices Johnson, Madsen and Sanders are particularly happy about being handed this hot potato(e), since they're the lucky 3 Supreme Court positions on the ballot this year (all opposed)?

Posted by: TimF at August 5, 2004 5:48 PM

Thanks for the info. Just too lazy right now to do the research on my own.

Yeah, there are going to be a lot of unhappy judges with all this. So much for coasting to easy reelection...

About ten years ago a write-in candidate won an election for congress in this state (Linda Smith), so will be interesting to see if any campaign against this "unopposed" judge is started.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 5, 2004 7:45 PM

I always vote against judges, simply because they always gets voted back in. I figure if they're good, then there's not a chance I'll vote them out. So no harm. But if they're that bad that there's a campaign going to throw them out, then my vote just may be critical.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at August 5, 2004 8:11 PM
« SUCKERS: | Main | WHAT WAR?: »