The Biggest Issue With Proposition 8 Besides Proposition 8
Tweet
Hey, Californians, how about you reform the moronic initiative system you guys have? Perhaps it isn’t a good idea to leave fundamental human rights up to a contest in which the biggest megaphone often determines the winner. As far as Prop 8 itself, I don’t know how making a second class of citizenry stands up in the Supreme Court, so we’ll see.
But again, THE CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION SYSTEM IS DUMB. KILL IT.
16 Responses to “The Biggest Issue With Proposition 8 Besides Proposition 8”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Shorter Willis…”I hate democracy!”
William has never heard of the concept of “the tyranny of the majority.”
The Proposition system is fine for questions of taxation, bond issues, etc. Constitutional amendments about fundamental human rights? Not so much.
GREAT insight, Oliver. I’m originally from California, the state that once cut its own throat educationally by voting down property taxes and has made a sad spectacle of itself since. Never occurred to me that it was the SYSTEM that led to this madness, but I think you’re totally right. This is one case where the legislature should have the reins.
America isn’t a Democracy, it’s a Republic. Or so cons like william like to tell us when the election at stake doesn’t have to do with hating gays.
More shorter william: Fags don’t deserve equal rights because they’re fags.
Countdown until we are told by the usual folks, yet again, that Prop 8 is not discrimination because gay people now have the same right as straight people to marry somebody of the opposite gender.
And hey, maybe there’s something to that. Straight people marry people they don’t love and aren’t sexually compatible with all the time, so…
If this isn’t a violation of the equal protection clause, I’m not sure what is. If the judges had the sense to kill prop. 187 from way back when, I can’t see this lasting long.
The state referendum needs to die. It turns out all the extremists against it and only some of the moderates for it.
As far as Prop 8 itself, I don’t know how making a second class of citizenry stands up in the Supreme Court, so we’ll see.
That was my first thought. Don’t seem constitutional on it’s face.
“You can has marriage. Oops, no you can’t.”
When are we going to finally figure out you can’t legislate morality?
Standing in line to Vote the question I heard most frequently was “What’s that one about?”. Confidence inspiring to see voters condensing their considered voting judgment into something that looks more akin to filling out a keno bet at at a buffet table in Vegas. “Hmmm, that looks like a yes…yes…oh, no….yes”.
Voters care about maybe 2 Propositions, and probably don’t research either one beyond what they see slathered all over their teeveees.
It’s a great system from a theoretical perspective, but the reality of the Prop system is that it causes more harm than good.
Countdown until we are told by the usual folks, yet again, that Prop 8 is not discrimination because gay people now have the same right as straight people to marry somebody of the opposite gender.
They do. The reason this is impermissible under the U.S. Constitution (but possibly not the California constitution) is that banning same-sex marriage is making a legal distinction based on sex where there is no compelling government interest to do so. It’s the same reason banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional under the U.S. constitution (as the CA supreme court recognized in Perez v. Sharpe, 20 years before Loving). The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for years that laws can’t treat men and women differently unless there is a compelling government interest.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet recognized “sexual orientation” as a suspect classification, and personally I don’t think it makes sense to base the right to same-sex marriage on whether someone is homosexual or not. Unlike our historic treatment of race (check off a box) and sex (Male and Female are the only options), sexuality is on a spectrum, and someone should be able to identify as straight and still be able to obtain a same-sex marriage if she wants.
@anotherbozo: ugh, that’s the OTHER bad California initiative that Arizona just passed.
Re: Supreme Court: Kennedy and Scalia are 72; they’re not likely to retire during the coming Presidential term. This IS going to come down to a SCOTUS decision, but this is certainly not the Court to take it to.
Thad, I agree regarding timing. If this is like the space between Brown and Loving, it’s going to be 13 years from Lawrence to the same-sex marriage decision… so 2016 at the earliest. And Brown was an actual affirmation of racial equality, whereas Lawrence just said you couldn’t arrest gay people for doing what lots of straight people do. And a few years before Lawrence, SCOTUS had to explain in Romer that no, you can’t amend your state constitution to express how much you dislike gay people.
Hmm. At this rate there will be a gay person on the Court by the time they rule for same-sex marriage.
The referendum, along with the initiative and recall, were enshrined into California law by a Republican progressive governor some 70 years ago, and his stated goal at the time was to keep Democrats from the governorship.
ed,
You kiss your momma with that mouth?
Parthenon,
To your point, it looks like the California Supreme court is looking at the Propostition now –
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1387052.html
“You kiss your momma with that mouth?”
I noticed you didn’t deny Ed’s claim.
And a robust democracy includes checks and balances so the majority can not take away the rights of the minority.
“To your point, it looks like the California Supreme court is looking at the Propostition now”
And as a point of law, Prop 8 should be struck down. And next time it comes to the ballot box, it should fail outright.
If Brown vs Board of Education had been put to a popular vote the same year the SCOTUS made its ruling, how many states would it have won in?
I was dismayed how many otherwise apparently sensible people completely forgot the whole ‘judicial review of legislation’ bit when the California Supreme Court made its ruling earlier this year. Didn’t ANYONE watch Schoolhouse Rock? Not to mention the fact that Prop 8 was written to RETROACTIVELY invalidate legal marriages. Last I heard, laws like that were characteristic of a very different kind of polity.