The California Supreme Court announced recently that it would begin hearings on March 5 concerning Proposition 8, the state measure that passed in the recent election recognizing marriage as being between one man and one woman.
The court stated that it will give each of the defendants an allotted time slot to make their case in the hearings against the proposition and will issue a ruling after 90 days.
Since the passing of Proposition 8, supporters of same-sex marriage have sought to overturn the measure, resulting in demonstrations in front of churches that support it.
In 2000, 61 percent of Americans voted in favor of Proposition 22, a measure that also recognized traditional marriage. On May 15, 2008 four justices from the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, making same-sex marriage legal in California. The judges took matters into their own hands against the consent of a voting majority.
Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council stated “The California Supreme Court has taken a jackhammer to the democratic process, and the right of the people to affect change in public policy. Four judges discarded the votes of 4,618,673 Californians.”
Abraham Lincoln stated that democracy “is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Although we love the concept of democracy, today we are far from being the nation that our founding fathers envisioned.
Democracy and freedom, terms Americans highly value, have become an ideal that seems to be losing sight of its purpose and main intention. The symbol of America as a free country is losing its effect, and the right to vote holds little importance because of the abuse of power in our courts.
It seems that the votes of the people are not significant enough to carry out the change they have sought and chosen through the established processes.
The voices of some are being lost in the midst of others, and the majority is loosing its ability to create change in the government.
What those justices did went purely against the California Supreme Court’s code of ethics, which states that our legal system is to be fair. These four justices went against the majority vote of Californians and misused their power to seek and accomplish the interests of themselves and the minority vote.
If the majority voted a measure into law, then as a democratic nation, Americans should support the opinion of voters and accept it as law. In this case, as is the case time and time again, the issue was brought to the courts, voted upon and overturned. This is not only a one-time occurrence.
The hearings taking place in March will seek to overturn yet again a majority vote on same-sex marriage.
Despite one’s opinion on the issue, one must realize that what has been done has gone completely against what this nation stands for. If America stands for democracy, then its courts must uphold the same principle.
We cannot call ourselves a free nation if we do not honor the rights of the people to vote and create change in their government. When the courts begin to listen to the voice of the minority rather than the majority, the end of democracy and freedom are not far behind.
Becky Yeh is a junior journalism major and a columnist for the Daily Forty-Niner.
The more I read comments in support of Proposition, the more I wonder if our education system in this country is utterly failing or if people have just talked themselves into delusional ideas.
Becky, how did you get into college if your civics education in high school is so utterly flawed that you think we live in a democracy? We’ve only had restraints on majoritarian actions to protect aspects of the lives of minorities since the Bill of Rights was entered into the federal constitution in the 18th century. We’ve only had judicial review to determine constitutionality, absent VALID revision to a constitution, since the Jefferson Administration. How is it that people in our society (including you too Marie), particularly those who are getting a college education, have missed these TITANIC features of our legal system. It’s not like we hide them!
Marie, your argument that same-sex couples want to destroy marriage is a ludcrious as it is hysterical. The Domestic Partnership Act does not provide the same rights and obligations as marriage for two reasons. First, California has hundreds of statutes interpreted by thousands of cases for this 150+ year old institution of marriage. There’s no guaranty that the Family Code’s declaration about all the rights and obligations of spouses means that all of these marriage rights and obligations apply. That’s why you use the same word in law when you mean it. Moreover, NJ just finished studying its own civil union statute. When couples interact with third parties, such as landlords, employers and health care workers, having those folks recognize what it means that the parties are in a civil union or a marriage is the difference between practical enforcement and denial of rights. NJ found persistent problems for same-sex couples in getting their rights enforced voluntarily under the statute, even after an educational campaign to health care workers statewide, and surveying VT which has had civil union for 7 years, found that the problems did not go away with time. So as all of you keep saying, words matter, and your efforts to use a different label but claim equality fall flat. And Marie, no one fights to get admitted to an institution to destroy it.
Allowing two men or two women to marry will not change heterosexual marriage one jot. Individuals get for their own reasons, out of their own commitments, and not because the people down the block can’t. Do we really think that white supremicists stopped getting married when miscegenation statutes were invalidated?
Then comes Your Name’s utterly bizarre effort to say that separation of church and state was to protect religion from the state, but the truth is that it was also supposed to protect individuals and their liberty of conscience. It’s not a new idea, but came to the fore when the original northern colonies got new charters from Charles II at the end of the English Civil War. People wanted to know that the Church of England would not force their religious practices (ironically) on free thinkers — baptists, congregationalists, and the like. Ironic that when they have more power and numbers, these free thinkers try to revise history to do the very thing their religious ancestors were trying to stop: force religion on others through the legal process.
And worst, Your Name’s implication that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue or an equal protection issue because blacks, who admittedly have been the victims of endless, horrible injustices in our society don’t see it hat way. First, blacks are not of one mind in their opinions. If they were, the NAACP would not have filed an amicus brief in SUPPORT of SSM, and the national NAACP would not have recently issued a press release calling on the CSC to invalidate Proposition 8 and on the CA legislature to attack it as an invalid amendment.
Moreover, in America, equal protection is not something that we put to the vote of past victims. I’m sorry some blacks don’t get this issue, but their failure to understand cannot undermine the birthright of all Americans, gays and lesbians included, to equal treatment. Nor is this an issue of comparative suffering, although gays have suffered plenty in struggling to get civil rights.
At the end of the day, some of you need to look in the mirror and ask why you have such a need to make everyone else like you. The answer might be instructive. In a pluralistic society, we need to be recommitted to the notion of equal protection as a core value and respecting the humanity of all, free of these nonsense lies cooked up to cover discrimination against gays.
Proposition 8 is invalid because the California Constitution does not permit the fundamental constitutional rights of a minority to be stripped away by a simple majority vote. The California Constitution establishes two ways that it can be altered. A substantial change to the principles or basic structure of the constitution, called a “revision,” requires the involvement of the legislature and a more deliberative process. A less substantial change, called an “amendment,” can be enacted by a simple majority vote of the people.
The California Supreme Court should strike down Proposition 8 because it is, in fact, a revision. The principle of equal protection, which prevents the majority from oppressing minority groups, is central to our constitution and our democratic system of government. Proposition 8 would limit that fundamental principle of equality for LGBTQI Californians and undermine the very purpose of equal protection for everybody.
“YES on Prop 8” knew this would not be able to pass; that is why they blanketed this proposition in religious rhetoric and fear-mongering, and tried to by-pass the proper legal process.
By the way, Becky, I live in the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most “liberal” places in America, and yet an older Asian friend of mine told me that she and her husband were forbidden from buying property in nearby Marin county in the 1950s because they were of Chinese origin. Another SAD, but true, story. YOU, of ALL people, should understand what discrimination is about. Go and live in the South Eastern US and you will understand my point. Asians are still not accepted in many parts of our country…. I’m ashamed of you, really… You’re in college? What are they teaching you?
So, as I see it you, Becky Yeh (a person who would have been forbidden to marry a Caucasian only 40 years ago), feel that because Californians voted for Prop 8 that we should now and forever ban gay marriage. I’d like to point out that in 1964 the voters in our state voted OVERWHELMINGLY for Prop 14, which would have allowed landlords and people selling property to discriminate against blacks (and maybe even Asians too). The CA Supreme Court overturned this hateful proposition two years later, and the US Supreme Court upheld that decision. Ronald Reagan made the following statement: “If a person wants to discriminate against a Negro it is his right to do so…” Sad, but TRUE! Sorry, but just because 52 percent of our state is clueless, it doesn’t make it right. Blacks were unpopular in 1964, and gays are unpopular in 2009. Who cares? This is not a popularity contest, it’s about BASIC civil rights. I hope the Supreme Court overturns our latest “proud” achievement in the fight for civil rights: Prop 8. It will restore my faith in humanity and the political system that you, as an Asian woman, enjoy! Shame you on Becky… Mark my words, WHEN gay marriage becomes the law of the land, you will hang your head in embarrassment that you supported this hateful amendment.
We know who you are, Jason Aula/la raza slayer. You are a racist and a gay basher. The “no no homo” gave you away from your Brother Jed event.
the libs continue to cry like babies…..the people have spoken shut up now….gays should not be married and should not force people to except that gay crap seriously. this a free country and the country does not support gay marriage gay marriage was defeated in other states this past year as well……do not force people to accept something they do not want to except!!!!!! no no homos
Your name—” Economy? Death? Heaven? God? Jesus? ” Those all sound like plausible arguments to overturn Prop 8 to me. What a goddamn homophobe. Get your head out of the clouds and out of your ass. Wake up to the real world you freaking WASP. I agree with “Lakota Nation.” You are a delusional bigot.
Your name, all of those fine pioneering Christians forgot something about freedom of religion. They didn’t afford it to the original inhabitants. After the initial theft of Native American lands because “the savages” wouldn’t convert to Christianity, the Sundance and all Indian spirituality was outlawed. Odd that they built a nation on the premise of freedom religion isn’t it? When the ‘founding fathers’ established their hegemony, there were NOT 300 million people from sea to shining sea. Don’t rely on the “history books” that were written by Anglos for Anglos. Study the real history. The same Christian ideals of the “founders” was to kill them all and let God sort them out. But then, most Christians would prefer to turn their heads about history that includes American genocide, Indian boarding schools, the Trail of Tears, more than 400 treaties (every one) broken by the U.S. government, et al. Colonialism, imperialism, the unequivocal racism of Manifest Destiny, et al, are not taught in elementary, high school or most colleges in true context. Stuff your Christianity and take a vision quest. Columbus didn’t discover America, we were already here.
Hello Mai and Equal Protection,
Do you two associate and align yourself and your opinions with ‘Your Name’? He seems pretty angry, profane, and pro beatiality too? Becareful who you hang out with.
Most African-Americans who voted for and against Prop 8 would take offense to all of you confusing civil rights movement with anti-prop 8 movement.
Separation of church and state is a doctrine that was meant to protect the church and religious freedom from the state. Everyone has been mislead in the public school system.
Read the original writings of founding fathers – I have. It’s available online and see for yourself, don’t let your junior high, high school, and college instructors mislead you.
Please read the original writings of the founding fathers of this nation. Check out the book “Original Intent” – it contains writings and references to original writings by the founding fathers of protecting religious freedom from government.
Do you remember the Pilgrims? They escaped to colonize our country to escape the tyranny and oppression of their religious freedom by the government of England. Go back and review your history books.
Before you folks bash on Christians.
1. Please read the original writings by the founding fathers – over 90% of them were Christians – founded this nation as a Christian nation based on Christian principles that led to the freedoms we enjoy today.
2. Abraham Lincoln was a Christian – abolished slavery in this country
3. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian – leader of civil rights movement that destroyed segregation
4. Sir William Wilberforce was a Christian – helped to fight and eventually led to an end to slavery in the British Empire.
These were great men who through their lives and examples were true Christians who gave Jesus the glory.
Please leave marriage alone – there are more important things to think about. Economy? Death? Heaven? God? Jesus?
Mai:
Those are the same ‘logical’ arguments, assumptions and terror tactics that were used to pass Prop 8 in the first place.
Christopher:
Point to the scripture that describes Adam and Eve’s “marriage” please. Was it a traditional wedding? Did Eve have a maid of honor and Adam a best man? How hilarious that you say, “Let’s discuss this like adults.” You probably still believe that the Garden of Eden had a talking snake that told the woman–who was made from Adam’s spare rib– to eat the apple. If that were so, why did Adam do the okiedoke and take a bite? They both knew they weren’t supposed to eat from that tree, so why did Adam eat the forbidden fruit? Such mythology was written by religious zealots to control the sexual functions of the masses and oppress women. Props 8 and 22 are meant to violate human rights; no more-no less.
To all:
We are a republic, not a democracy. The courts were invented to protect the minority from being dictated inherent human rights by the majority. The majority once decided it was OK to own slaves. It took a constitutional amendment, following a bloody war, years of oppression and the Civil Rights Movement to declare that blacks were equal to whites. That’s what will happen with Prop 8 too. It will eventually be decided as a civil and human rights issue by the U.S. Supreme Court. Get over using religious dictatorship to define the legal rights of others. The courts recognize the rules of separation of church and state.
Moses:
What a dumb ass. “Leave marriage alone – it is between a woman and a man in all cultures and religions around the world since the beginning of time”? Marriage is a modern invention, like religion, in the time span of human existence. Either that or even the old testament is a work of fiction, when polygamy was widely practiced by religious icons, is a staple for Muslims and was practiced as recently as the 19th century by all Mormons, to name but a few. Most of the communicable diseases brought by Euros to indigenous people in America originated from domestic animals. There were no domestic animals prior to colonization. Many of those diseases were sexually transmitted diseases. Answer this: How did the Euros contract sexually transmitted diseases from animals? Baaah! Lonely rural men having a good time with their livestock is how. One man and one woman and one sheep is more like it. Get your head out of your ass and stick your nose in some of the holy books you’re thumping.
Really now? All of you Pro-Prop 8 are going to have hypothetical arguments comparing the marriage of two loving people to the marriage of pedophiles and a child? That’s very logical of you. What’s this idea that it’s destroying marriage? Whose marriage is it destroying? Oh because two women want to marry makes the entire definition of marriage ruined, or the fact that two men wanting to get married makes marriage “destroyed”. How does someone else’s marriage affect yours? And the argument that civil unions are enough is segregation. That’s right, segregation. When you have two “equal” institutions, but one group gets one institution and one group gets another, then that’s pure segregation and discrimination. Separate but equal is not constitutional, or maybe you already forgot your history.
As to the argument of the fight against Prop 8 as subverting the democratic election process, maybe you’ve all forgotten that this country was built to fight the tyranny against a major power. There have been many law cases made before that overturned the votes of the people because it was the right thing to do. You can see that in the civil rights movement, where the acts of the lawful overpowered the wrongful majority at that time. Years ago, people didn’t allow an Asian person and a Caucasian person to marry. what’s the difference now other than their sex? And why should your religious ideas have any say into what happens into government. Separation between church and state?
Dear ‘your name – Thursday @5:31’,
Christians do address those sins you just talked about. It’s also in the bible.
Citing the slippery slope argument concerning pedophile and beastiality is valid as a warning because they can also use the equal protection clause of the constitution to fight for their rights to do it.
Slippery slope argument against prop 8 can be backed up by legal doctrine of stare decisis – (definition) Latin term meaning “to stand by things decided”. It is a legal doctrine in which courts generally follow the application of the law as decided in similar prior cases, which is referred to as following precedent. The requirement that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis.
Precedent means that the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. A recent decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court.
With stare decisis, pedophiles and beastialists can then argue for equal protection under constitution and if a judge is an activist judge, then one day they would use stare decisis to approve their rights.
Leave marriage alone – it is between a woman and a man in all cultures and religions around the world since the beginning of time.
Same-sex couples already have same rights under Domestic Partnership Act of CA
I’m simply amazed at the ridiculous arguments some of you make in support of Prop 8. Gay marriage is an infringement on the rights of heterosexuals? That’s a new one. That’s like saying that allowing black people to use the same water fountains as whites was an infringement on the rights of white people. Unbelievable.
How in the world does a gay marriage hurt a heterosexual person and his or her marriage?
The argument in favor of Prop 8 is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and always has been. As if nothing has ever changed in marriages since Adam and Eve. Sorry, but arguing not to change something simply because it’s always been a certain way doesn’t really hold water. Oh and by the way, not everyone believes that Adam and Eve were the first marriage. Once again, this debate gets clouded by people’s staunch religious beliefs that we are not required to adhere to.
Marie and others, I hope you respect the will of the people when they vote to overturn Prop 8. You went from 61% voting against recognizing gay out-of-state marriage down to 52% opposing in-state performed marriages. In other words you lost 9% of your support in just 8 years even though you were voting on actual marriages versus hypothetical ones in Prop 22.
I think it’s funny that an American would talk about social ills in countries like Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, and Norway. I’ve been to all of these countries and the social ills in those places pale in comparison to what we have in the U.S. Stop citing studies about single-parent households. That’s not what gay marriage is about. And how about citing the studies that show that children growing up in two-parent homosexual households have no difference in adjustment or mental health than those growing up in two-parent heterosexual households.
I wonder why no Christian ever wants to address the issues of divorce, fornication, and adultery. Instead they keep repeating the silly bestiality and pedophelia arguments.
I agree with Becky and please keep giving us your opinions and viewpoints.
What’s up with all the name calling? Bigot? Religious wing-nut supporter? Homophobe? Why are some people so childish and angry? Let’s discuss this like adults.
Please remember that prop 8 is about the definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman. Historical, legal, federal and state statutes have stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. The first recorded marriage was between a man and a woman (Adam and Eve).
What’s the problem?
The Domestic Partnership Act of California already give same-sex couples a civil union that has the same rights as married couples in the State of California.
Stop blurring the lines. There are absolutes in this world. Research in Europe have shown in countries that have had same-sex marriage laws that very very very small percentage of homosexuals actually get married. Ask Lord Elton John why he doesn’t need marriage? But in those same countries that allows same sex marriage they’ve been battling with social problems with dramatic increase in children born with single parents or out of wedlock.
As sociology studies have shown in the U.S.A. single parent families lead to higher crime rates, lower education, severe damage to society and government. Of course having children out of wedlock is not a direct result of same-sex couples’ actions, but the destruction of traditional marriage has consequential damage to society with these out of wedlock children where there is no normal family structure. Marriage is no longer a big deal in those European countries.
USA Today – Sharon Jayson wrote article discussing new research that also shows that marriage and healthy family structure promotes the well-being and development of children, therefore society can benefit from these children.
Californians have voted twice now to protect marriage. Why do people want to destroy marriage? Should we try to overturn the presidential election because the candidate we wanted didn’t win? Should we run to and go through the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the vote? The rights of the voters of McCain can say that they were not protected under the Equal Protection Clause? Can McCain voters and their rights to want McCain as president be protected? Should McCain voters go and boycott and threaten voters of Obama because their candidate who represented their ideas and viewpoints didn’t win due to a vote? Should there be another Civil War over Prop 8?
By the way …homosexuality is a choice, it is a lifestyle choice. Your religion or faith is a choice, you are not born with it or into it.
There is no scientific evidence that proves that there is a homosexual gene. Do your research.
Let’s not be childish and overrule democratic voting results of Prop 8 and Prop 22. The four judges who went against the will of the people must stand down if they are to do their jobs and uphold the laws and constitutions of California and this great nation.
Let’s move on with our lives and leave marriage alone, I believe there are more important things to worry about than to destroy marriage. Wake up people… tomorrow is not a promise for anyone.
LET’S GET THIS STRAIGHT – THIS IS NOT GAY BASHING OR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS. PROP 8 IS ABOUT PROTECTING MARRIAGE AND PROTECTING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
Supporters against protecting marriage and its definition will always falsely bring out the discrimination and rights cards without thinking out the bad consequences of their actions.
Majority of Californians already voted once against changing definition of marriage and voted against gay marriage by a majority of 61.2%. Californians voted for protecting marriage in 2000 by passing of Proposition 22.
What happened to the votes and the rights of those people who voted for protection marriage between a man or woman? The activist CA Supreme Court threw the votes of 61.2% of Californians into the trash can. California Supreme Court overstepped its authority and went against the will of the people. I thought we were a democracy?
Where do you draw the line from right and wrong? There are absolutes in the world, don’t allow misinformed and confused people and activist judges to blur the lines. It will lead to confusion and this country and our society will continue to go down.
Same-sex couples already have the same rights as married couples. Same sex couples already enjoy all the rights of married couples under the Domestic Partnership Act (2003)
Why do the opponents of marriage (Prop 8) want more? They already have the same rights as married couples. Maybe they just don’t know the facts or maybe they want to DESTROY MARRIAGE? Please read Domestic Partnership Act (2003)
This is not about taking away the rights of homosexuals and it is not about discrimination against gays, but it is about the definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman.
People opposed to prop 8 are discriminating against married couples, they are prejudiced against all married couples and voters who know and feel that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Voting against prop 8 is DISCRIMINATION AND PREJUDICIAL AGAINST US (supporters of prop 8) because of our beliefs and because we’re heterosexual and we’re in a marriage that has been established since the beginning of time between a man and a woman throughout the world.
Tomorrow what if some 50 yr old man wants to marry a 8 year old girl? How about his right?
What if a mother wants to marry her son? It is between two persons who love one another. How about their rights and love for one another?
What if a pedophile or child molester wants to marry a child? What if they mutually love one another? What about his rights?
Once again – where do you draw the line and make a stand for what is right.
MARRIAGE BY DEFINITION IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
Civil unions are not equal to marriages. The most obvious of these is that not all states recognize civil unions, so if a gay couple wanted to move, their marriage would not be valid in 47 or whatever states. That’s some pretty sick inequality right there. I can’t recall exactly, but married people can petition for their spouse to enter the country, can make decisions for them in hospital settings, among other things. Civil unions ARE NOT marriages and shouldn’t be treated as such.
Homosexuality is not a choice. Why would people purposefully choose to be part of a group that cannot marry, face relentless discrimination and insults, and in some cases, have been the target of violence because they are gay? Science overwhelmingly says that homosexuality is not a choice, and there have been some cases in twins one is gay and the other is not – destroying the myth that homosexuality is groomed in children and the supposed reasoning for banning gay couples from adopitng children.
I absolutely hate slippery slope constructions (they’re not even arguments), and the “let’s let people marry dogs or more than one person” is not an argument, but a red herring and a distraction from the real issue. But let me just throw one out there, just for the heck of it. If you conservatives are so concerned about the sanctinty of marriage, what are your thoughts on banning divorce?
Becky said, “If we believe that it is ok to just overturn measures voted by the majority, then what if one sought to overturn the election of the president? Wouldnt that be unfair also?”
Are you really this dense? Are you not paying attention to what people are saying? The argument is whether or not the proposition that was passed by a majority of voters is one that can be decided CONSTITUTIONALLY by a majority vote, it’s not about just overturning any old thing that is voted on by a majority of voters. And it is precisely the role of the judicial system in our country to make that determination. Not some uneducated journalism student wannabe.
Using the majority vote argument isn’t going to get you very far anyway. The trend on gay rights and gay marriage votes is clearly moving in one direction. A vote like this 20 years ago would have been passed with 80% of the vote. Ten years ago probably 65-70%. Look at the age breakdowns in the votes. The fact that Prop 8 passed with 52% in 2008 shouldn’t give comfort to its die-hard supporters. If the courts do not overturn Prop 8, which I believe they should, the voters will, and I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t happen within the next 5 years tops.
“In 2000, 61 percent of Americans voted in favor of Proposition 22” That’s some goooood journalism.
Anti-gay bigots have won the battle, but not the war. One day, in the very near future, gays will be afforded the right to marry in the US. Sorry homophobes, you’re fxcked.
Becky, how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is a choice? Your ignorance continues to show. And even if it were a choice (which it isn’t), that does not mean it is not protectable under civil rights laws. If you are a Christian (which I’m assuming you are based on your praising of Rick Warren), were you born a Christian or did you choose to be one? Last I can recall, religion is a protected class under the Constitution. By your logic, people should be free and allowed to discriminate against people based on their religion, since it was a choice. How about we put up a bill banning Muslim marriages and it passes? Should that be allowed to stand too simply because a majority of ignorant bigots voted for it?
The slippery slope argument is a typical fear-mongering one used by people on your side. Homosexuals are adults capable of making decisions for themselves. We have plenty of laws to protect minors and animals from abuse, irrespective of sexual orientation. That is called “equal protection”. What you and your religious wing-nut supporters want is unequal protection. Marriage is both a legal (state) and religious (church) institution. Nobody is asking that churches be forced to recognize gay marriages. But if you don’t want the state to recognize gay marriages, then under equal protection, the state should not be allowed to recognize straight marriages either.
One last piece of advice: Take a civics lesson 101 course before you write editorials about things that you evidently know nothing about.
This is the second time that the majority of Californians speak against same-sex marriages. The definition of marriage should be kept between a man and a woman only.
I agree with you Becky… we need to defend the proper and right definition of Marriage… soon people will to want to marry their cats and their dogs just because they “love them”.
Thank you so much Becky for writing articles like this one. Keep up the good work!
I understand that America does seek to protect against the tyranny of the majority, which I believe is wrong, but the issue of prop 8 is not a civil rights issue. It is to redifine marriage. If we open same sex marriage just because it is based on the issue of love, why dont we allow marriage for people who love multiple people? What about polygamy? What if someone loves a 13 year old? Shouldnt these people get the same rights? Where do we draw the line on marriage?
Same sex couples are protected under civil unions which means they have the same rights as traditional marriages. There are no seperate drinking fountains for homosexuals, like in the days of the civil rights movement.
The arguments concerning interracial marriages is unrelated because skin color is not a choice. Homosexuality is a choice.
Im not saying this to start an argument, but just to state why the overturning of this measure is wrong.
If we believe that it is ok to just overturn measures voted by the majority, then what if one sought to overturn the election of the president? Wouldnt that be unfair also?
Brenton,
If what you said is true then why are 30% of residents who voted for prop 8 in Laguna pissed at their town council. They are using the same argument you just shot down as support for their participation in the law suits.
Unfortunately liberals always whine when they lose the people have spoken through direct democracy please do not let the supreme court overturn the matter……the idea is just so unamerican
Abraham Lincoln stated that democracy “is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Although we love the concept of democracy, today we are far from being the nation that our founding fathers envisioned.
Except our founding fathers did not envision a democracy. You seem to have avoided these quotes:
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. ” – Thomas Jefferson
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” – Benjamin Franklin
Next you wrote:
“If the majority voted a measure into law, then as a democratic nation, Americans should support the opinion of voters and accept it as law.”
But we’re not a democratic nation. We are a republic. If we always went with the majority, then the ban on interracial marriage would still be in place. Then you wrote:
“When the courts begin to listen to the voice of the minority rather than the majority, the end of democracy and freedom are not far behind. “
Do you even understand the purpose of the court system? It was designed to protect the minority.
“Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
If the majority is stripping rights from the minority, it is indeed designed so that the court can intervene.
Perhaps you should take a course in american government such as is generally part of the general education requirements at most universities. In doing so you will find that one of the main things that our founding fathers were trying to accomplish by setting up the courts and our system of government is to prevent what is called the Tyranny of the Majority. Not too long ago it was considered illegal for a white to marry a black. If it was voted on at the time the voting would have been similar to what happened here. Yet the courts decided otherwise. Do you think that was wrong too? Or how about brown v board of education when they forced schools to integrate because seperate was not equal??
Brian…thank you! What a way to put it. I agree with you !
Brian…thank you! What a way to put it. I agree with you !
Brian…thank you! What a way to put it. I agree with you !
Very ironic that Becky argues that what threatens the “freedom” that our founder envisioned is denying the majority the right to deny freedom to the minority. Aside from that, I agree with the other comments so far. Becky obviously has only a fourth-grade understanding of how our government does and is supposed to work.
The author of this article obviously has no understanding of the system of government in the United States. I’m surprised that this could actually get published in a university newspaper.
Becky, this is the worst argument I have ever heard as to why the court should uphold Prop 8. Firstly, we are a republic NOT a democracy. Secondly, there are some things that cannot be left up to a bare majority of voters. Human rights is one of those issues. You are asserting that if a majority votes for something, that is the end of the matter. Fortunately, this is not how things work. If it did, we would all be in a lot of trouble. This is why we have courts. Sometimes the majority tramples the rights of minorities. It has happened throughout history and courts are there to step in and equalize. Just be thankful that the majority did not come after your marriage. If it had, you would be singing another tune. Just for a moment, put yourself in someone elses shoes. Try to have compassion for others and try to understand why some people are rightfully upset over this. Do you think invalidating 18,000 loving marriages is just and fair? While I understand the logic you are using, it is flawed. BTW, I am not gay.
California is one of the few states in the country that only requires a pure 50% +1 vote to amend its constitution. There’s practically no such thing as a federal referendum.
In my opinion, the presence of proposition 8 on the ballot in itself flouted the role of our justice system. One of the roles of a SCOC judge is to make sure that legally protected groups receive that protection. The people of California (52% of them anyway), in my opinion, undermined this important role. And if California is a place where majorities can just simply vote on the rights of myself or other minorities, it’s not a place that anyone should call a free state.
If America was really founded on the protection of the majority, why is it so hard to get things passed? An amendment to the U.S Constitution required three-quarters of the states to ratify it. We don’t elect the president directly; we do some weird Electoral College, who has subverted the popular vote nine times – and if 100K votes in Ohio had turned in Kerry’s favor, Bush wouldn’t have been reelected president. If the founding fathers really thought we should be voting, what’s up with this Electoral College?
The U.S Senate was not popularly elected until the Seventeenth Amendment, and requires 60 votes to avoid a filibuster – and the Republicans tried to subvert this with the nuclear option. Apparently, they forgot that they wouldn’t be the majority forever, and are probably glad now after the Democrats stomped them in 2006 and 2008. California is in the budget crisis it is in now because the Dems don’t have two-thirds majority and can’t get anything passed without Republican votes – IIRC they need two votes, and there are no Republican mavericks. (We could use some John McCains here.) It seems to me that America is founded on protecting the supermajority, not just 51% of the voters.
And indeed, this is the crux of the anti-Prop. 8 legal action – that the proposition was a constitutional amendment instead of a limited one that should have required a two-thirds majority to pass, not merely 51%.