Seriously???

So the apparent message here is that democracy works, but only if the majority vote falls on 'my side' of the arguement... (as a side note, this is not a single-issue phenomenon; some people disturbingly predicted riots and possibly even a second civil war if Obama had not won the election).

After a brutal struggle to protect families, California's Proposition 8 passed by a margin of 52.5% to 47.5%. The proposition adds to the California State Constitution the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The California Constitution stipulates that propositions which get a majority vote become law the day after the election (in this case, Nov. 5, 2008).

Of course the fact that the majority of Californians are opposed to same-sex marriages doesn't seem to matter to those who voted 'No'.

1) Thousands of people went to the streets on Wednesday in protest of the proposition, resulting in several arrests - Can you imagine the size of the protest if the proposition had failed? Oh wait, everyone would be accepting the democratic decision, possibly crying, possibly packing their things to move to another state, but definitely not out in the street protesting and banging on the sides of buildings in groups numbering in the thousands.

2) Three groups are asking for stays/injunctions on the proposition claiming that "radical changes" can't be made with a ballot initiative - They may or may not be right, I'm no lawyer, but upholding thousands of years worth of traditional marriage seems hardly "radical". Also, if the proposition was fundamentally flawed in procedure, why is this only coming up now that it has passed, and why the heck did opponents of the initiative spend $37 million trying to convince people to vote No?

3) The argument is still being made that the proposition is discriminatory because it withholds a fundamental right from a single group - Except that marriage is not a fundamental right since it requires obtaining a license, paying a fee, meeting the requirements, etc. The proposition also does not discriminate against a single group, it bars multiple groups from marriage; this includes same-sex couples, multiple partner couplings, under-age couples, inter-species couples, incestuous couples, etc.

4) San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom has promised to continue marrying same-sex couples until he is sued and forced to stop - You mean that high-profile law that was just passed by a majority of the people in your state isn't 'force' enough? The mayor is being cheered by his city for deliberately breaking the law???


This kind of stuff really ticks me off. One group feels passionately about an issue and either fails to realize that the opposing side is just as passionate or just doesn't care. A battle that we thought we had won through following proper procedure turns out to be still going on and once again looks like it will be in the hands of liberal activist judges who forget that the law is created by the will of the people. If same-sex couples/proponents want to change the state constitution or law, they should go through the proper channels of legislation and ballot initiative that the law provides, rather than relying on a handful of judges to (mis)interpret the law.


The battle rages on, let us hope that we will continue to prevail in protecting marriage and family.

Labels: politics

posted by Brett at 2:41 PM