Taking issue yesterday with Patrick Range McDonald’s criticism of the current campaign to defeat this fall’s California ballot proposition which would amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, Alex Blaze of the Bilerico Project suggests that Golden State LGBT activists are neither tone deaf nor political amateurs as McDonald claims. As proof of this, he points out that they “got same-sex marriage passed by the state legislature two times in the past several years.”
I will grant that state LGBT activists are hardly political amateurs, that is, when it comes to lobbying. They do a good job influencing elected officials Sacramento, but the legislature there is hardly a normal one.
Our state Senate districts are bigger than our congressional districts. Our state Assembly districts have (on average) only 50,000 fewer people than does the entire state of Wyoming. Our state House is one of the smallest while the state has a greatere population than any other. Montana, North Dakota and Vermont, each of which send one only Representative to the U.S. House, all have larger state Houses than does California which sends fifty-three.
And these districts are so gerrymandered that in the past two elections, not a single seat shifted sides.
As a result, we have a tone-deaf legislature where the Democratic majority continues to cook up new means to regulate the economy and increase the size of state government while facing fiscal crisis after fiscal crisis. There’s not enough money to pay for the programs already on the books, but instead of trying to reduce their costs, our legislators seek to invent new ones.
Just as they give short shrift to our financial woes, our legislatures also take little heed of the popular will. Twice they voted for gay marriage without once considering what the citizens, who had overwhelmingly voted against it, thought. Had they considered the people they represent, they would have referred the matter to them by putting a measure on the ballot repealing the measure the citizens favored (Proposition 22).
To be sure, some claim the popular mood has shifted since 2000 when that proposition passed. But, the only true way to measure that would be to ask citizens to reconsider. Our legislature, however, thinks they know better than did the citizens. Insulated from rejection at the polls by gerrymandered districts, legislators voted whichever way they wanted or in response to the appeals of whichever lobbyists did the best job of convincing them. And I’ve got to give the gay lobby in this state credit for doing its job well.
But, convincing legislators is not the same thing and appealing to citizens less obsessed with looking good in the media. And that is why I (and I presume Patrick Range McDonald) are concerned about the leadership of the campaign to defeat this fall’s ballot proposition.
They may know what it takes to lobby an out-of-touch legislature. They don’t seem to understand how to influence socially conservative voters. And while California may appear to be one of the most socially liberal states, our population includes many groups who, while they vote Democratic, remain skeptical (if not outright opposed) to the idea of gay marriage.
Unless, groups opposed to this propositon bear that in mind, they’re going to find that while they might succeed in the legislature in Sacramento, they won’t in polling places across the state.
gay people need to take the ‘t’ out of their movement. there’s no law saying someone cant dress up like a woman if they want to. but as a gay man it has absolutely nothing to do with me. the fact that left wing moron future obama supporters back in the 90s insisted on including transgender in the movement is probly the reason gay rights are still so limited.
You’re right! Heaven knows that the legislature would never nullify a law written by the legislature, so why should they utilize some hooey-phalooey “set constitutional and political process” to do the same thing in a completely legal manner.
The legislature should not take action on its own, EVER! Really, why do we even bother with having one? We ought to just let everything be a direct vote of the people.
And for that matter, I’m not too sure about this “governor” thing, either. I mean, he could veto legislation, even if “the people” wanted it to pass. What is up with that??
Seriously, a direct popular vote is clearly the way we should run everything in this country. Get rid of that president and the congress. What are they, really, but a way to cleverly circumvent the will of the people?
Mob rule forever!! Screw you, Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and company. And an extra-special, “SCREW YOU,” to James Madison. What were you thinking with having these elected “representatives”???
Gosh, the founding fathers were sooo dumb! Good thing we know better now!
A. Sure, just completely forget about female to male.
B. Is that really all the deeper you see it? Somebody playing dress up in public? Usually, I’d just call that drag. For any of the trans folks I know, it goes much deeper than that. That’s like when anti-gay folks call refer to “the homosexual lifestyle” or claim that it’s ONLY about buggering other guys (or gals, depending), not things like love and commitment.
C. There are logical reasons for the association (I speak of both legal/activism and social/support contexts).
–Because there are laws preventing that person from marrying and from jointly adopting and all those other things (in many cases), so we’re working for the same (or similar) ends on a lot of these things.
–Transgender folks face a lot of crap for the same reasons and from the same sources as LGB folks.
–We are both viewed by many people as “gender non conformist” (if you want to use that terminology), just in varying degrees (or not, depending on who you ask).
–We often have similar experiences in life, a hiding or being closeted, some form of coming out (maybe twice, even for trans folks). We share similar childhood taunts and tormentors. We may not be the same, but we’re awfully similar in a lot of important ways. And we are different in important ways, too, obviously.
D. Every political movement has people it could “throw overboard” to make it easier, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. That sounds like Utilitarianism, to me. Which is fine, but not very conservative.
E. Do you really think trans folks (who recieve so little attention and coverage) are the overall dealbreaker? From what I’ve seen, I highly doubt that.
So it’s a matter of opinion I suppose. (Isn’t it always?) I’ve laid out some points defending mine. Feel free to respond, in kind. But, FOR GOD’S SAKE, please stop using the words “leftist” or “liberal” or in this case “left wing” to automatically discredit something. That’s not an argument, it’s an excuse not to argue.
Um, PSUDain, trying to figure out your point in #2.
I actually don’t favor the liberal use of popular initiative for which the California constitution provides. But, that’s the way it is here in the Golden State. And in setting up a federalist system, Madison would respect that right.
So, the rest of your exclamations make little sense. Who’s saying get rid of all these institutions? I’m actually saying respect a process established by the California constitution, a response that at least three of the founders you mentioned would have given as well. (I’m not so much aware of Franklin’s constitutional jurisprudence.)
Had there been no initiative on the ballot, then the legislature would have been completely within its rights to change the definition of marriage. But, once the people voted (again, as per the California constitution), the legislature had an obligation to ask them to reconsider before taking up the issue.
And that’s what I’ve been saying at least for as long as I’ve been blogging about the issue–e.g. here.
The legislature should not take action on its own, EVER! Really, why do we even bother with having one? We ought to just let everything be a direct vote of the people.
If the legislature is truly representative, it will vote in the same fashion as the people.
If a legislature ceases to be representative, the supreme power established in the state constitution belongs to the electorate. In this case, the legislature has ceased to be representative, and the people of California are exercising their constitutional rights to govern.
Furthermore, the hypocrisy PSUdain expresses — that the state of California should conjure gay marriage through extreme interpretation, but should ignore the clear language in its state constitution that expressly grants the voters the power to amend it — is a classic example of the tone-deaf attitude GPW has pointed out.
There aren’t any laws anymore, either, saying people can’t do it with the same sex. Should the gay rights movement just stop now?
Trans people have a stake in legalizing same-sex marriage and have given countless hours of work, written lots of checks, and even put their lives on the line for the rights of gays and lesbians. They’ve earned their place in this movement.
GPW~ Thanks for continuing this discussion. That was an interesting and informative post to read!
Not possible.
You propose to broaden the existing order. That is, by any definition, a liberalization of the status quo. The existing order for marriage has been around for an extremely long time in our culture and the cultures from which we draw common law tradition.
I can not understand the utility in pretending that broadening the standards of marriage is not a liberalization. If the time has come when the heterosexual majority will determine to loosen the standards, then so be it. Change happens. But it will happen after open debate, not by rigging the rules. And here is another drecree:
If someone refers to “the homosexual lifestyle” is that person automatically anti-gay? Is it possible to disdain buggering other guys while understanding things like (gay) love and commitment?
You paint heavy lines of predetermined rules around your willingness to engage in dialog.
Sorry, pal, but we have a big problem with some public restrooms at a park. It involves same sex encounters and a few pedophiles thrown in as well. It is a well known meeting place for those seeking a well known meeting place for meat market activity. Now if a transgender cross-dresser male decides to choose the ladies’ room, our anti-gay picture will be complete, won’t it. Maybe we should build separate restrooms and label them “straight only” and “gay only.” We have a doggie park at the park, maybe we should have a doggie-style park, too. But these gays are not representative of all gays. It seems to be the conservative gays who are most honest about the broad spectrum of “lifestyles” among gays. You just seem to be trolling for numbers, regardless of “lifestyle” so you can goose up your political clout.
Would that your pious view of the conflicts some bring to the public square could be easily solved by banning words and managing speech. The Canadians are sure doing a bang-up job of it.
So, bring on the invective.
I’m not sure what most of these comments have to do with the subject of the article. Whether or not you agree with the CA Supreme Court or with how they reached their decision is at this point moot. The decision has been made and the question now is whether or not you support the Nov. ballot initiative to amend the CA constitution. If you support it because you’re angry with the Supreme Court or because you simply don’t approve of gay marriage, that’s your choice. But if you think the initiative should be defeated, than the issue of this article is whether or not the gay (mostly liberal) groups in charge of the campaign to defeat it are doing the right thing in falling back on the arguments that have failed in every marriage amendment fight in this country. I agree with McDonald’s article that they are not doing the right thing.
I can’t decide if these liberal groups are tone-deaf, stupid or if perhaps they really don’t want to see the gay marriage issue go away in CA. If the amendment passes, then these groups, who rely so heavily on donations from the GLBT community, will have one more badge of victimhood with which to raise funds.
To GPW:
What I’m saying is respect a process established by the California constitution. Both the legislature and the referendum are acknowledged as ways to create or nullify laws. Ergo either can nullify an action of their own doing or of the other. In this case, time has passed, positions have moved, and I don’t think the legislature’s votes are out of line. Clearly they can nullify legislative actions of the past that have been signed into law, and as the representatives of the people, their actions in nullifying this were just as valid. That was my point. I don’t think that just because a law was a referendum that it gets special treatment over time. Because BOTH are acknolwedged in the process, both should be able to act.
I guess I just get sick of hearing about how politicians are “defying the ‘will of the people'” because of whatever vote. The “will of the people” is very important, but sometimes a leader must do unpopular things if they think it is right. Do you think that politicians should act just based on polls of their constituents, or should they act on their own principles and then let the public vote up or down for their reelection based on their performance? (I realize it’s not a perfect system, but, to paraphrase: It’s the worst, except for all the others.)
(I’m not saying that I agree with the line of reasoning, but one could make the case that by continuing to support the war in Iraq that the President and Congress are defying the will of the people, as measured by various instruments. Why is that kosher, but this isn’t?)
I think that enshrining the “will of the people” as an absolute or supreme authority can be dangerous, as part of what the founders intended was to protect individuals from “the mob”. I’ll admit that my rhetoric was over-the-top, but it’s a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I can get a bit heated. Sorry to be so crass (and possibly off topic). Have I better explained my point, now?
To heliotrope:
Yeah, let’s play semantics. I didn’t deny that it could be called “liberal”. All I asked was that that not be used as if it were an argument against it, because, “It’s liberal,” would be a neutral point of fact, not an argument.
What the devil is your problem? I say one thing about transgender folks and about how being gay is about so much more than physical ‘relations’, and you jump down my throat with all manner of wild accusations, and tired cliches. I’m really not certain what to take from your jeremiad. Are you accusing me of supporting public sexual acts? Because I don’t. Are you implying that I support paedophilia? Because I don’t. Are you also trying to imply that I want to create government enforced speech codes? Because I don’t.
Clearly, if I think that there are other components that are more than or equally meaningful as the physical, then I don’t personally support actions that are just physical and lack the other components.
I also think that there are plenty of left-leaning gay people who have pointed out that “gay” does not constitute a “lifestyle” precisely because of our diversity. Now sometimes they may be blind to certain aspects (but many are not, so be not too hasty to judge all according to a few), but they get that there is diversity, not monolithic sameness.
You really didn’t make any clear points, just a list of demi-accusations. (If I were you, I wouldn’t bandy about that term, “invective”, without further review, possibly involving a mirror.) I don’t see why you treat any person positions which differ at all from yours as if they are anathema to all your views. The fact that you perceive that we may (or may not, I’d have to hear more from you–I’m not going to jump to conclusions) disagree on one point does not make me your political foil.
Oh come on people. The “proposition” form of government is nothing more than a sign that the political system in California has completely broken down. We are supposed to elect the legislators to make the hard, informed decision,s based on more information than the average citizen possesses, even if that vote goes against the “majority”. The framers resisted setting up a mobocracy for a reason. The proposition system allows the legislators to get out of making the hard decisions, therefore avoiding having to be responsible at election time. As a result, they sit on their hands, while the general public, who for the most part, get nothing more than sound bite info about the thing they are voting on, and vote, not on real info about the consequences of our actions, but on the emotion of the times. It’s a travesty! Look at the state budget. Ever since Prop 13 passed, the state has been limited in its capacity to collect the funds to pay for the fiduciary spending. Normally the state would now have to control spending to balance the budget. But no! All the have to do is put a bond initiative up as a proposition, say it’s for the children, and BAM!, it’s instant money, approved directly by the public. The problem is that the general public has no idea that a bond is a high interest loan or credit card, and will have to be paid back. The government gets its money, and the best part is that, since they didn’t vote on it, they are not responsible for the dept. This is why the state has a $14 billion deficit, AND one of the worst credit ratings in the nation, with no solution to the mess in sight.
Now getting to amending the Constitution via a proposition. Are you NUTS??? A simple majority should never EVER be the sole requirement to amend asuch an important document. There is a reason the founders made it so damned difficult to amend the federal document – to make bloody well sure we know what we’re doing when we embark on such an endeavour.
I hope this make some since. Had my fair share of vino and I’m tired and going to bed!
I can’t begin to express how much I agree.
Now getting to amending the Constitution via a proposition. Are you NUTS??? A simple majority should never EVER be the sole requirement to amend asuch an important document.
Why not?
After all, it works both ways; if it takes a small majority to amend, it also takes a small majority to reject the amendment or to reverse it.
The problem here is that gays and lesbians, many of whom throw around words like “mobocracy” to refer to the democratic process, insinuate publicly that voters are neither educated or intelligent, and even publicly state that voters should suffer because otherwise they “don’t trust voters to make the right decision”, inexplicably have trouble even getting a simple majority.
1. The will of the voters does not necessarily equal the will of the people, given the pathetic voter turnout. Besides, new recent polls – the new Field poll, especially – show growing opposition to the proposed amendment. (Granted, polls don’t have the force of an election, but they’re taken pretty damn seriously by the people on both sides of the issue.)
2. The term “gay lifestyle” is used by people who think, or say they think, being gay is a choice. It’s not about a monolithic community groupthink.
3. Do we want the state constitution to be amended, then amended again, then amended again on the same issue every time the pendulum swings back and forth across the 50% line? That’s damaging. A higher bar guarantees there’s a concensus, not just a erstwhile majority.
4. I thought PSUdain’s “Screw Madison” comments were offered sarcastically.
5. The “will of the people” in the South used to be that blacks shouldn’t vote or own property or be able to use public facilities. Is anyone in this thread honestly arguing that the US Supreme Court shouldn’t have voted the way it did in Brown v. Bd of Education or that Congress shouldn’t have passed civil rights legislation? The state Constitution is clear.
Sardonic would probably be more the word. But yes, they were offered at the height of sardonicism (though I did have a point I was trying to make, of course).