According to today’s New York Times, California Attorney General Jerry Brown (where have I heard that name before?) has asked the State Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the voter initiative which bans same-sex marriage. Brown said such a review was necessary to provide closure and clarity on the ballot measure, as several challenges to the measure had been filed with the Court.
Apparently, the central argument in the law suits is that Proposition 8 is a significant enough revision to the State Constitution to require the approval of the Legislature.
I’ve neither an clue concerning the requirements for changing the California State Constitution, nor any idea of the likelihood for success of any of these law suits. However, I do have an opinion about what the Legislature should do in the event that the Court remands Proposition 8 back to the them for their approval.
They should stick Proposition 8 in some dark hole where no one will ever find it, save perhaps for some same-sex couples enjoying their honeymoons. Like such couples, California’s legislators should show some balls.
Proposition 8 deserves to die; if dropped into their lap, the Legislature should treat it like an unwanted pregnancy at Bloomberg LP.
The question remains, how many commentators from NY’s Progressive Blogocracy agree with me?
I suspect that my fellow DNC designated blogger, Rock Hackshaw, may be the only NY-based "Progressive" commentator expressing pride over the role played by the African-American community (not to mention the Obama bubble) in passage of this referendum. Nonetheless, I would be remiss if I didn’t suspect that Rock probably believes that the legislature is duty bound to ratify the verdict of the public.
In fact, I‘m absolutely certain Rock would feel that way, even if the public had voted the preserve the right to same sex marriage (of course, since I once considered Alan Heveis a model public servant, it could just be that I am gullible). But I’d rather trust a check from the McCain campaign (drawn on the “Wham-O National Bank” and enclosed in a condom wrapper) or a promise from Pedro Espada, than believe that any of the other "Progressives" railing about the majesty of public plebiscites will be as consistent.
After all, the arguments made by five California homophobes, who filed suit in support of Prop 8, sound very familiar:
"When using the initiative process to amend the Constitution, the people exercise their sovereign power of self-government."
It almost sounds like something off of "The Daily Gotham".
Don’t believe me? See for yourself:
Bouldin: Pay close attention, New Yorkers: you are being disenfranchised before your very eyes.
Mole333: This was about overturning the will of the people.
Mole333: This puts him in with Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court who set aside the votes of the people in a one time decision to have the Supreme Court appoint Bush president in 2000. How does this differ except it is a legislative rather than judicial "fuck you" to the voters?
Mole333: more and more is coming out about how and why the City Council decided to declare votes of the people unimportant by reversing popular referenda.
Mole333: The NY City Council just majorly discouraged voter participation by showing the whim of elected officials can sweep away the vote of the people on a whim. I previously thought Republicans specialized in that kind of crap.
Bouldin: Let the people vote.
Brooklyn Optimist: this is not a debate about whether term limits are good. Personally, in an ideal world, I would be opposed to term limits, because the people should have the right to vote for whomever they want, for as long as they want. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world.
Mole333: We all simply oppose an arbitrary mayoral and legislative reversal of the clear will of the voters
Mole333: the vote of the people in a referendum should take precedence.
Actually, this is unfair. There are real differences here. The vote on term limits is 12 years old, while the vote on Prop 8 took place this month; and the decision to modify term limits was made by a popularly elected legislature, while the decision to allow same sex marriage was made by an unelected court; and the decision to modify term limits was a change to a City Charter rather than a State Constitution. So, obviously, there are real distinctions concerning whether popular sovereignty is a moral imperative in one case and an inconvenience fact to be ignored in the other.
Obviously.
If one is willing to elevate faith over reason.
Frankly, anyone who is intellectually honest cannot parse such a distinction.
One can either uphold popular sovereignty, or one can say that there are occasions when it can arguably be ignored.
And, once you take the latter position, you can still oppose the Council ’s decision on term limits, but you no longer can smugly call for eternal damnation for all who took the contrary position, as a shorthand substitute for evaluating each individual race for elective office on the basis of all the issues the City faces, instead of on just one.