And yes, I refer to it as same-gender marriage, but really just prefer to call it "marriage." It should not have to be qualified. If any qualified need be attached, I'd really prefer equality marriage. I hate that it's called "same-sex" marriage. As if people keep having sex when they get married. Ha. No, it' just that gayness, and marriage, aren't all about sex. However, neither the media nor the right (for different reasons) will ever give up anything with the word sex in it, be it the "homosexual lifestyle" or same-sex marriage.
Anyway, I'm rambling. I was ecstatic at the California supreme court ruling in favor of equality, and dismayed at the pending shitstorm of hate and bigotry on the horizon (from "a never ending parade of stupid.") Based on antiquated frontier law, it is ludicrously easy to alter the state constitution. All that is necessary is a paltry number of signatures to get a proposal on the ballot, then a simple majority. When the California supreme court ruled that laws against mixed-race marriage were unconstitutional, the popular vote was 90% against racial equality in marriage law. What is popular is not always right.
All the haters need is 50% plus one person to show up at the polls to enshrine anti-gay discrimination into the state constitution.
But doing so would be such a drastic change to the constitution, equality groups are arguing that it would not just be an amendment, but a revision to the state constitution. And a revision requires two-thirds legislative approval.
Of course, the haters are going ape shit over this. Some are crying more "judicial activism" over "the will of the people," conveniently forgetting that the state legislature is of the people by the people. Or maybe they are remembering that the state legislature, presumably wiser and better educated than their constituents, passed a law explicitly legalizing same-gender marriage. Twice. Only to be vetoed by a conservative governantor.
From the San Francisco Chronicle/SF Gate:
In papers filed four days after the legalized same-sex weddings began around the state, advocacy groups argued that the measure would change the state's Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision. Under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone - a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters.
Read the story.
1 comment:
Have you ever considered the political implications of this?
Moderate voters value democracy. This stunt can only serve to alienate more moderates.
Post a Comment