Gay Patriot Header Image

CA Supreme Court to Hear Challenges to Prop 8

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:31 pm - November 19, 2008.
Filed under: Gay Marriage,Legal Issues

For the past week or so, I’ve been wondering if some of those organizing the rallies against Proposition 8 hope to influence the California Supreme Court, using the appearance of social unrest as a means to push the court to overturn the popular proposition.

It looks like the unhappy activists may get their way. The state Supreme Court will hear a challenge to “the legality” of Proposition 8.  At issue is whether Proposition 8 is a revision to the state constitution or an amendment:

Unlike constitutional amendments, which can qualify for the ballot with signatures on initiative petitions, revisions can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a state constitutional convention.

The state’s high court has defined a constitutional revision as a fundamental change in government structure and has struck down only two initiatives as revisions. The last time was in 1991, when the court overturned provisions of a measure that would have required California courts to follow federal standards on criminal defendants’ rights rather than relying on the state Constitution to grant broader rights.

I contend it’s an amendment not a revision.  The constitution’s silence on the standards for marriage argues against the notion that Prop 8 revises the fundamental structure of California government and the basic rights it protects.

For it to revise, it would have to alter language in that document itself. All it does is add a provision which changes only the state Supreme Court’s understanding of the document, an understanding based on finding a notion (”dignity”) in the constitution which just isn’t there.

(When I searched the state constitution for that word, I found it only in Article 1, §28 (a)(2) on the treatment of victims of crime.)

Unless the opponents of Proposition 8 can provide evidence that the framers of the California constitution intended the state to recognize same-sex marriage, I don’t think they have much of a case. The “right” that activists claim exist was created by the state Supreme Court only this past May.

While I hope the court allows those who got married in recent months to retain the state recognition of their unions, I do believe the Court should let Proposition 8 stand, not because I like the idea of a provision defining marriage in our state constitution, but because I prefer democracy to oligarchy. And we’d have the latter if four justices were allowed to determine the state’s standards for marriage.

The antics of those upset by the success of the initiative suggest that all too many of them aren’t ready for the responsibilities of marriage. That said, many gay people are. It’s too bad they’re not leading the debate on this issue.

Will the Juvenilia of Prop 8 Sore Losers Ever Cease?

[Please note I revised this post slightly to correct typos and to clean up a few paragraphs.]

Imagine, if you will, that in order to protest the outcome of the recent elections, some leading Republicans declared a “Day Without Republicans,” encouraging those disappointed with the election results to “call in Republican” to work and stay at home all day.

Well, some sore losers of the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 are doing just that with their latest childish antic, declaring December 10 a “Day Without a Gay” when people “call in gay” to work.  Can’t these people grow up and instead of extending their temper tantrum, actually work on promoting the idea of gay marriage?

If they’re not adult enough to handle a political setback, are they adult enough to assume the obligations of marriage?  I know that many gay people have assumed such obligations and have shown that they are up to the task.  Shouldn’t these individuals be telling those demonstrating to chill and work on a more adult solution to the current situation, like actually promoting the merits of gay marriage?

Even gay leaders have demonstrated a childish attitude toward defeat at the ballot box.  In an extended rant on her blog, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Executive Director Kate Kendell says “there will never be acceptance” of the result. That’s not leadership.  That’s refusal to accept reality.  And it’s childish.

Just by following the antics of gay activists and reading the public statements of the heads of gay organizations, I would assume that gay people aren’t up to the obligations of gay marriage.  Fortunately, I know gay couples who take their marriages seriously.  That’s why I opposed Proposition 8.

Think about that statement for a minute.  Okay?

Now, let me explain again for those who, like Miss Kendell, refuse to accept reality.  I’m a gay guy.  I socialize with gay people.  I know many who favor gay marriage, have gotten married and who take the institution and their vows seriously.  That’s why I voted “No.”  Unlike me (and others in coastal metropolitan areas), many Californians do not know such couples.  A good number of them voted, “Yes.”  

You’re not going to change their votes by acting like children who didn’t get the toy they wanted for Christmas.

Instead of continuing this temper tantrum, advocates of gay marriage should, unlike Miss Kendell, say that they accept the results of Prop 8.  The should show respect for those who have serious concerns about changing an institution defined for millennia by gender difference.   They must refuse to define advocacy of traditional marriage as hate.  And they must accept their obligation to make the case why this is a good thing.

Most have refused that obligation, resorting instead to repeating their mantra that gay marriage is a civl right without explaining why that it is so (except to quote the Loving decision).  Or blathering on about how the Proposition eliminates a right-as if the state had long recognized same-sex marriages.

I now wonder if mayber I should have voted, “Yes,” on 8 in order to remind advocates of same-sex marriage of their failure to make the case for gay marriage.

RELATED:  Michelle Malkin’s The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob: “Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 have responded with threats, fists, and blacklists.”

The Gipper on Gay Leaders

To console myself in the wake of big-government victories at the ballot box (even if the Democrats didn’t campaign as such), I’ve been reading lots of Reagan in order to remind me of a Republican who could articulate opposition to such a statist agenda.

Last night, while reading randomly in Reagan: A Life In Letters, I chanced on a passage which, while written in 1982, could be used to describe the heads of national gay organizations:

I’m in agreement with you about some of our so-called leaders. For some time now I’ve wondered whether many of those who’ve made a career of heading organizations, whatever the cause, don’t really want the problems solved because then their jobs would be gone.

No wonder none of the gay leaders are taking responsibility for the passage of Proposition 8. Admitting their errors might threaten what really matters to them: keeping their jobs.

Barack Obama: New Kind of Politician

President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to tap former Clinton Administration Deputy Attorney General as Attorney General sees to indicate that his campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, he’s going to govern as an establishment Democrat.

Holder was a not just Clinton Administration insider, he also brings with him some of the Clintons’ ethical baggage.  As Jennifer Rubin details, his conduct in the pardon of fugitive Mark Rich in the dying hours of that Administration was cited as “unconscionable.” Some kind new of politics.

While Obama campaigned on changing Washington, Holder has spent his entire professional career in the nation’s capital where he doesn’t have a record (or the reputation) of someone who shakes things up.

Interesting that Holder is the first cabinet appointee whom the president-elect has tapped (at least that we know about).  This follows the appointment of several former Clinton officials to the incoming White House staff.  It looks like Obama’s team is building a team not just of Clinton insiders, but also of Washington insiders as well. This is not change.  This is more of the same.

As the pro-Hillary hillbuzz puts it, Holder

. . . actually seems like a candidate Hillary Clinton would have picked had she won this year — which makes us ask just how much “change” Obama intends to bring if most of his Cabinet picks are all Clinton Administration people. Not that we’re complaining, but it’s a stark contrast to the rhetoric of his campaign in the primaries where he was all about distancing himself from the Clintons, and now it looks like just about every post will be filled with Clinton people. All of this might be a good indicator of “change” meeting “reality”.

(Via Instapundit.)

No wonder I’m finding it difficult to trust the president-elect.

UPDATE:  Some Obama fans aren’t happy:  “These guys didn’t put together a campaign in order to turn the government over to the Clintons.”