Yeah, I read the 75% figure too. It's definitely large enough for there to be no debate about what the majority of the country wants (and quite encouraging to see, on a personal level, as someone who is very much on the yes side~
), but that's still 1/4 of the country (if we assume that the voter turnout is reflective of the general populace's views, anyway) you have who are opposed to the decision. That's quite a lot of disappointed people, and by no means an insignificant number. I think it's definitely the best way of resolving these sorts of issues, but it still must sting for all the people who voted no.
Yeah, I was kind of wondering if it was a one time thing, or if it's the case for all constitutional revisions over there. Think it's a pretty good way of going about these things, as generally anything worth revising the constitution over is going to be something significant enough that the public deserve a say.
And yeah, I read about that. One part of me wants to be petty and say that there have for so many years been people in positions of power across the world who have used their platforms to speak out against the rights of LGBT people, and that this is really only a reversal of that. But ultimately I don't think it's particularly fair for those in positions of power to try and swing these things one way or another, even if, as in this case, they're acting in my interests. Would like for decisions that are supposed to be the people's to be, as far as is possible, left to the people themselves.
Originally Posted by Elin
Yeah, I read the 75% figure too. It's definitely large enough for there to be no debate about what the majority of the country wants (and quite encouraging to see, on a personal level, as someone who is very much on the yes side~
sums up today.
)
