Rose Knows

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.

Q: How can I get a job in the Obama administration? — Job-seeker

A: They do seem to be the only ones hiring, don’t they?

For high-level positions, it helps to be a former candidate for the Democratic nomination; a governor or senator who plays well with people on both sides of the aisle; or a senior staffer on the Obama campaign. Come January, it might help if you’re a hypoallergenic puppy in need of a good home.

The rest of us can apply via change.gov. According to the confirmation email I got, the administration will keep applications on hand well after the election – so even if you don’t get an administration job, you could still put “considered for position in Obama adminstration” on your resume. It’s a better talking point than your certificate in some technology that hasn’t been applicable since 1996.

Q: What’s up with the vice presidential nominee picks? — Joseph (and a whole bunch of other people)

A: The recent announcement of major party running mates shows how two teams can face the same issue and come up with very different results.

In this case, both campaigns wanted to fill gaps in their candidate’s public perception.

The Obama campaign conducted a classic job search: They held interviews, conducted background checks, and in the end picked the best match for the position out of the pool of submissions.

The McCain campaign came up with a list of demographic groups in which they weren’t doing as well as they thought they should, figured out what would appeal to those groups, and fed the criteria into Karl Rove’s old Select-O-Matic. Out popped Sarah Palin.

Right away, Gov. Palin gave a speech in which she strongly implied that disaffected female Hillary voters should vote the McCain/Palin ticket because Palin’s a woman. For why I find this insulting, see my other blog, here or here. (It’s a sidebar to the question at hand, and I already went through the trouble of posting it anyway. And by “the trouble of posting” I mean “the effort to hit some keys and buttons”.)

Now, the question is, did the McCain team pick her in good faith, or is it another Harriet Miers thing? As you may recall, a couple years back, one of the President’s Supreme Court nominees was someone whose primary real-world qualification was that she would appeal to the evangelical voters that Bush needed to have on his side for the 2006 elections. She stayed in the running exactly long enough to get noticed, then pulled out. Evangelicals cheered anyway.

There’s a rather interesting side discussion over whether McCain’s campaign properly vetted Palin: The campaign says they did, but they didn’t seem to contact anyone in politics or the business community. And there’s something very curious about a campaign waiting until the day before the VP announcement to send a team of investigators to the candidate’s home state. This lends credence to the theory — bolstered by people close to the candidacy speaking on terms of anonymity — that McCain wanted to pick Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, but had to concede that neither of them were conservative enough to please the voters he was in danger of losing. Specifically, neither of them was sufficiently anti-abortion.

As I write this, word comes out that Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, and that young Bristol plans to keep the baby. From what I hear, mood on the convention floor — from the delegates who think it’s more important to preen than to volunteer — is jubilant: She’s going to have the baby! That’s the only thing that matters! That proves that her mom is totally pro-life! Which means McCain isn’t just pandering and social conservatives should vote for him! Let’s raise $10 million this weekend! …Never mind that whole hurricane thing, or that if a Democrat candidate’s kid was going to have a baby the delegates would probably view it as a parental failing, or how Bristol shows even less sign of being pregnant now than she did at the time when, according to some theories, she was pregnant with the kid who is being called her little brother. There is a very cynical part of me that wonders if Bristol’s being forced into pregnancy padding as punishment for some private misdeed.

(As for the aforementioned theories: I’m really not sure what to make of them. Though I do think it’s interesting that Gov. Palin showed no outward signs of pregnancy during her seventh month; flew after her water broke; and was back at work three days after delivering a baby with special needs. O… kay. I don’t know, maybe she’s just Superwoman.)

So: Is Sarah Palin going to hang with the ticket for the long haul, or is she going to drop out after she’s shored up evangelical support but before she gets thoroughly raked over the coals? We’ll know soon enough. It’s been less than a week, and there are already allegations of serious impropriety in the dismissal of the state’s Public Safety Comisioner. There’s that past membership in the Alaska Independence Party to deal with. And who knows what else might come to light now that Palin is under scrutiny? Visit intrade.net for the latest odds on whether Palin with withdraw, and pass the popcorn.

As for Joe Biden: He perfectly complements Obama. He’s more experienced, particularly on foreign policy; perceived as more working-class; and generally the sort of guy you’d want to sit next to on the train. He’s been running for President off and on for over 20 years now, so he knows the drill. He has, apparently, been properly vetted. What’s not to like?

Oh, right: He’s not Hillary Clinton.

Okay, disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, gather ’round. Let’s have a talk. I know you love her, and that some of you are really disappointed. Fine; it’s your right to feel however you want. But there was no political reason to pick Hillary, and a whole lot of reasons not to. That’s just reality. The McCain campaign thinks your hurt feelings will push you to vote for the Republican ticket, even though their platform directly contradicts so many of Hillary’s position. You’re the only one who can decide whether it’s more important to vote with your heart or your head.