I had not intended to write a follow up to Proposition 8: The New Bigotry until I read about the latest hypocrisy in the ongoing debate since the ballot initiative passed. Supporters of Proposition 8, so vocal about voter approval to amend the California State Constitution, now want the same Constitution to overturn another voter-approved initiative — the Political Reform Act of 1974. They seem to believe that they can have it both ways and have asked the court to back them.
Proposition 8 added fourteen words to the Constitution of the State of California: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” California voters approved it by 52.3% of the November 4 vote. In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which defined “marriage as between a man and a woman,” by 61% of the vote. On May 15 last year, the California State Supreme Court declared that statute unconstitutional and legalized same-sex marriage in California.
The constitutionality of Proposition 8 is before the California Supreme Court.
The amendment's co-author Kenneth Starr represents its supporters in asking the court to uphold the Proposition. By the close of business on January 15, a number of groups filed amicus 
curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs to ad to Starr’s. Among them, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Family Research Council, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations filed briefs.
Of its legal filing, San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer wrote that under California Law, “Same sex couples who register as domestic partners will continue to have ‘the same rights, protections and benefits’ as married couples. Proposition 8 simply recognizes that there is a difference between traditional marriage and a same sex partnership.”
Article comments
1 - Roger Nowosielski
Great article. I would wish, however, that you'd offer your own personal view on the issue of gay marriage, in addition to what you imply as you try to unravel the legal wrangling. But perhaps the formatting of your piece, not to mention the intent, would have suffered had you done so.
Another time, maybe.
Roger
2 - apples_alex
The reason why prop 8 (and many other voter initiatives) pass is simple: when you rally a bunch of uneducated sheep to the voting booth, you get an uneducated, bigoted result. You know...the types who don't know anything about the issue (let alone DELIBERATE on it, in the same way judges would) yet vote a particular way because their equally uneducated pastor told them to vote that way.....baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
When you put the issue before highly educated people--college professors, judges, lawyers, scholars (people with brains who can think logically)--the result is almost always the complete opposite. You see, judges and professors tend to THINK THE ISSUE THROUGH with REASON and LOGIC, rather than go to the voting booth blindly like good little sheep. There are absolutely no logical, legal arguments against gay marriage.
The typical "yes on 8" voter knows better than to speak out in a college classroom (especially a law school classroom) because their "argument" would be laughed out of any forum where brains exist. I witnessed that at my law school first hand a few years ago. Poor bigot was so passionate about the marriage issue but could not come up with a single, logical, legal argument against gay marriage; everything he said was effectively refuted by both the professor and the majority of the class. Oh, good times...
In sum: the dumber you are, the more anti-gay you tend to be.
3 - Roger Nowosielski
That's the problem, Alex, with vox populi vox dei. Our founding fathers were wary of mob rule; and "liberalism" in its initial formulation (I can't find the source right now!)was conceived as providing countermeasures to this simplistic proposition.
4 - Dave Nalle
You don't get any better a result from consulting committees of the educated and intellectual than you get from asking the mob. The results are just biased in a different direction.
Decisions like this need to be made on the basis of fundamental law -- either the constitution, or going above it to the basic rules of natural law. The sad truth is that courts are more likely to adhere to those principles than legislatures or anyone else.
Dave
5 - Heloise
At least someone around here can write! Good article. Even though my best friend in my last life was a closet gay man (Lem Billings) in this life I am written off as grossly homophobic..who knew?
But the truth is closer to why should prop 8 ever have been up for a vote or proposition or whatever in the first place? Blacks hate that they were pulled unwittingly and unwillingly into this debate by the parallel comparisons of blacks and civil rights and gay civil rights.
Again, one can ask the question why were black civil rights ever needed to be up for a vote or constitutional amendment in the first place? Because bigotry and hatred of "the other" is woven into the warp and woof of humanity. You have to MAKE people, power MUST be taken.
So, gays better muscle up for the battle ahead. How would I have voted on such a prop: yes, no to gay marriage. I don't see the need if their legal rights to cohabitation and medical and legal rights are upheld regarding their significant other. That I would vote for.
Sodomy and miscegenation were against the law a few decades ago, are they right now just because a law has been passed in their favor? Hmmm, at least blacks are now whole people and not 1/5 a human being.
Heloise
6 - Heloise
To #2 apple: a person can be against laws pro gay and still NOT be averse to gays. Your logic is not legal IMO. Your comments are also bigoted against what you call "dumb people." The latest dissection of the voters showed that the dumb people who voted for prop 8 were also highly religious...whatever that means.
Most of them were black, Hispanic, poor and into religion/church. So you are calling black people and poor people dumb I take exception to that and have to speak up for the dumb multitudes whose mob mentality did the right thing and killed gay marriage.
Heloise
7 - Cindy D
I always thought god like white people better than black people. He seemed also to like men better than women. Now I find he likes black people and women equally, but he doesn't like homosexuals.
God is such a fickle creature. He can never seem to make up his mind what he thinks.
8 - Andy Marsh
I thought it was idiots, drunks and children...
9 - Brunelleschi
This thread calls for a question-
How are matters of rights to be decided then if the "vote" of the majority violates the rights of a minority? How are people to be protected from bigotry?
Propositions don't work. Opinion does not define right and wrong.
We do things all the time for small numbers of people because it's the right thing to do. I don't see anyone writing propositions to reverse rules to make new buildings wheelchair accessible. But, someone had to decide that needs to be a rule and did.
People that want to do unpopular things that don't really bother anyone else deserve to be protected too. Someone besides the mob has to decide, I agree, but what then?
10 - Andy Marsh
But when the rule was made that all new buildings had to be wheelchair accessible, another groups rights were stepped on. The people paying to build a building are now required to spend the extra money to put in ramps. Whether or not it's a good business practice or the right thing to do, it's still gov't mandated bullshit and someone has to do something and/or pay for something they may not want to. Rules always ending up screwing somebody.
11 - Cindy D
Brunelleschi,
Someone besides the mob has to decide, I agree, but what then?
So, the mob shouldn't decide. Did you give up on the wise representative who knows better than the mob? Where does the court fit in, for you?
12 - Tommy Mack
For those keeping score, here is the latest update on the hypocrit court appeal.
Tommy