That Prop 8 ruling post
This morning, the California Supreme Court ruled to uphold Proposition 8, which amended the California state constitution to ban same-sex marriages. They also ruled that the 18,000 marriages performed before the ban were still valid.
As a civil rights-loving Californian, I’m disappointed in this ruling, but as a lifelong follower of California politics I’m not at all surprised. The question before the court was not specifically about same-sex marriages. It was about whether, under California law, the voters can amend the state constitution with a simple majority on a ballot referendum. In the decision, the justices take great pains to note what the case in question was about:
Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal
effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values. (p. 3)
In a sense, petitioners’ and the Attorney General’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. If the process for amending the Constitution is to be restricted . . . this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake through the process of amending their Constitution in order to impose further limitations upon their own power of initiative. (pp. 12-13)
(You can read the decision in its entirety on the Court’s site. There’s also an in-page version at laist.com. If you care about politics in California, you really should peruse it.)
In other words: The Court’s hands are tied by precedent. If we Californians don’t like the system, we should get off our asses and change it. ‘Cause heaven knows, the system is screwy. Take it from Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. He’s in Sacramento right now, trying to preserve funding for cities in the California state budget. His take:: “[W]hen a bare majority can strip away a fundamental right - yet it takes a two-thirds vote to pass a budget - then our system is fundamentally broken.” He should know; he’s a former speaker of the state Assembly who wants to be Governor some day. Why anyone would want to try to be governor of this state, I don’t know; it’s less a state than a collection of several industries clamoring for money. Schwarzenegger’s starting to look like he’d like to un-recall Gray Davis. (Gray Davis, sipping a margarita on a Century City patio: “Oh, HELL, no. You wanted it; you deal with it. Hey, how’s that budget going?” Arnold: “Shut up.” Gray: “Hey, you know what would be a great way to raise some revenue for the state? Start doing same-sex marriages again! That’ll bring in the tourist dollars.” Arnold: “SHUT. UP.”)
Two pieces of good news, though. First of all, the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed prior to the election are still valid, because there’s nothing in the amendment that can be construed as making them retroactively invalid. The people behind Proposition 8 like to use skewed perceptions and scare tactics to convince voters that if same-sex marriage is permitted, all matter of calamity will befall our society. The continued existence of those marriages will just continue to show how stupid that argument is.
Second, things are changing. Prop 8 put the issue on the national table in a way that nothing else had previously, and the more people talk about it, the more they realize that the only reason not to allow same-sex marriage is that some people don’t like it.
As I noted in a previous post, the younger someone is, the more likely they are to support same-sex marriage. Among voters under the age of 30, the approval rating is 66%, and it’s just a matter of time before the demographics shift enough to win back same-sex marriage in California.
How long? Political stats guru Nate Silver is glad you asked. He recently crunched some numbers, picked out the important variables, and concluded that same-sex marriage bans are losing ground by about 2% a year. Given the narrow margin by which Proposition 8 passed, he figures that the California electorate would vote to repeal it in 2010 if it were on the ballot.
So, let’s get cracking, my fellow Californians - especially you doggedly single straights like me. Because this isn’t just about same-sex marriage rights. It’s about the preservation and extension of civil rights in all areas, to everyone in the state. You can’t legislate reality. A bunch of people not liking something should not be sufficient grounds for revocation of its existence. If it were, we would live in a world with no baseball or Russian literature. And that would suck. Especially the part about the baseball.

People ask me stuff. I answer, if I feel like it. Pretty straightforward, really.