Thursday, March 05, 2009

Prop 8 ramblings

It's baaaaack!!!!!
Yes, prop 8 is back in the news here in California because the opponents have taken their issue to the California Supreme Court.
I have mixed feelings and I am glad to read that the justices do, too. I am an opponent of Prop 8, as you can see from some of my previous posts. I won't go into it all and get all frothy at the mouth, but let's just say that I'm disappointed in the voters of California.
So, Maureen, why the mixed feelings?
Well, the voters who turned out did vote for this thing and should we expect that the court should just easily overturn the will of the people? I know I wouldn't want them to if it was an issue I supported. I want them to seriously take their time and debate what it will mean for our state if the court can just come in and overturn an amendment.
Now, don't get me wrong, I do not agree with prop 8 in any way, shape or form. I voted against it and argued with numerous people about it.

So, we have the will of the voters, but then that brings up another point. 7 million people voted for prop 8 in California. That is hardly a majority of the population. California's population stands at about 36 million... so you are talking about 1/5 of the population. Now, granted, some of the 36 million are minors, but, still, 7 million does not a majority make. So, I guess I should direct my anger at the people who didn't get out and vote. Where were you to put this proposition in it's place? Now we have to hear the arguments of people telling the court that the majority of voters voted for this amendment... but how do I know it is what the majority really wants?

I'll be watching this closely, because while I would be happy to see prop 8 go away, I'm not entirely sure it is something that should be determined by our courts.

4 comments:

Tom said...

Don't worry Mo, far fewer people have decided that our kids MUST wear helmets to ride their scooters or bicycles. And far fewer people have decided that we need locks on handguns (even though more kids die from drowning than accidental death from firing Dad's weapon).

If there's any justice at all the Supreme Court will uphold the will of the people (this time). Whether you liked prop 8 or not the precedent would sicken me even more (if that's possible) if the court decided to truly do away with the voice of the people. And this was actually (unlike helmet and gun laws) the voice of the people. God help us all if it is overturned.

Maureen said...

OK... I do see your point, but I can't help but cringe that you would compare handgun laws and helmets to rights of people to marry one another.
But I do believe we are on the same page that the court ought not overturn this. I would hope there could be something that could be done with another proposition or something to vote on. Would that be legal? Excuse my ignorance, but I wonder if the public can vote to overturn a previous amendment. That would be the way to go.

Super Mega Dad said...

I too am watching this one. I'm very curious how the court rules on this. This will tell us how things will progress in the future in California.

And it would have been a fight no matter how Prop 8 went. If it went the other way, that side would be fighting it too. Can't we all just get along!? ;)

Tom said...

I've got to cringe right back when you indicate that semantics of whether or not a man and a man or a man and a woman are *exactly* the same in the eyes of the State. Very few of our freedoms are as important to the constituency as the right to bear arms. One of the first steps to enslaving a population is to disarm it.

Men can marry men today. We're talking about whether or not the State (the people!) acknowledge that as exactly the same as men marrying women. Of course, it's not the same. Men are also not exactly the same as women. Not indicating that one is better than the other but they *are* different. To date it's been okay to make such descriptive (and it's descriptive only) differentiation.

California allows TODAY the same civil rights to married couples as they do to domestic partners. What's the difference? Terminology. That's not good enough for these Liberal groups... they want to be able to teach our kids that there is NO DIFFERENCE and that's plainly incorrect.

Comparing the semantics at play here to the truly important issue of gun control is like comparing a day when your child did not get snack time at school one day to the starving kids in Africa.