jezzer wrote:I voted yes.
But, unlike most on here, I don't believe that the grounds for a no vote are entirely baseless by any means. My grasp of the Constitution is shaky, but I think there's enough in its fairly unique contextualisation of the family that a yes vote could spawn in the future more challenging and complex questions. It's perfectly true that a yes vote doesn't automatically change anything, but the path is open for wider changes to be sought by interest groups or individuals on the basis of the changed "constitutional identity" that is afforded by a yes vote.
I'm OK with that, on balance. Not everybody is.
I'm not OK with being just as bigoted towards those who are no voters as certain no voters are towards gay people.
Very similar in a number of regards, Jazzer. I voted yes to both amendments, but I know very reasonable people who voted no to either/both of them and haven't lost any respect for them whatsoever. They didn't make a big deal of it or go around trying to convince other people to change their vote, but it was clear from conversations that they were very likely to vote no. I don't have to agree with everything friends/family/colleagues do to like or respect them.
Of course, there are a lot of people on the public/official 'No' side who I didn't have much [if any] respect for in the first place, and wouldn't want to be on their side of the argument in any case – John Waters, Breda O'Brien et al. I found their arguments to be really weak on an intellectual level. I have no doubt that they fully believed in their cause [i.e. they weren't doing it just to be controversial], but to my mind they couldn't really make a compelling argument against the amendment, while the public/official 'Yes' side had quite a lot of good answers and presented them in a measured and convincing way. I also found a lot of the personal narratives from gay friends/former college mates/colleagues very affecting. It was clear that it was a huge deal to them and that they saw it in many ways as more than just a referendum on marriage, but as a vote on attitudes and acceptance.
I agree that there may be other issues further down the line – the law of unintended consequences and all that – but the propensity of the 'No' side to bring all these circumstantial possibilities to the fore and not have adequate answers or rebuttals to the case at hand only served to highlight [to me, at least] that there didn't seem to be any good reason to vote no and quite a few good reasons to vote yes.
With regards to the presidential age referendum, I believe that people should be judged on their own merits. I voted in the morning on the way to work, and passed my polling office on the way back from work, where some poor old dear with her husband in the passenger street was making a pretty dreadful hash of pulling her car out into traffic. It struck me that while the majority of 80+ year olds may not be particularly good drivers anymore, there are some that are still completely capable. I wouldn't revoke anybody's driving licence without cause just because they've reached the age of 80. While the majority of those under 35 mightn't have the judgment or experience to be the head of state, there might very well be those few who do, and who could bring vigour and purpose to the role. Who's to say that they're too young at 25 or 29 or 34?
