Prop 8 Defeat Shatters Myth of Liberalism and Democracy

I am not at all surprised by the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Proposition 8 passage, the statewide referendum that essentially banned gay marriage in California. I don't blame the court. As dismayed as I am by the passage of Prop 8, I had no doubt there was nothing illegal or constitutionally wrong with the manner in which its supporters won. Those of us who feel gay men and women should have as much right as anybody else to create a legal expression of their love will just have to fight this fight in another, albeit more difficult way, by changing hearts and minds.

In some ways what bothers me most about this whole Prop 8 thing is that it makes me question two basic cornerstones of what we generally think of as givens.

The first of those is the well-accepted and much publicized notion that California is supposed to be this liberal Mecca and bastion of forward thinking. Well that whole idea was certainly shot to you-know-where by the large number of conservative minded people who flocked to the polls and made it known that these Californians, the majority voting that day, are not as liberal as you might think. Other states, ones we don't usually think of as leading the way for progressive thinking, have shamed California on this front. So maybe we need to rethink this whole West Coast as the most progressive thinking myth.

The other thing that the Prop 8 vote forced me to reconsider, sadly, is the idea that democracy, at least when it comes to giving any voter the right to make laws, as is so popular in proposition rich California, is always a good idea. At first blush it seems so egalitarian to say that the people, the regular folks, and not the elite leaders and organizations, should have the power to make laws directly through these common statewide ballots. But the problem is that I'm not so sure anymore that we should leave such things as civil rights up to a popular vote. Such important concepts should not become campaign material, open to the vagaries of money, campaign organizing, and personal whim. I wonder if we had simply put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 up to a popular vote in certain Southern states, if it would have carried. I have my doubts. Which is why I don't think we should ever leave such a thing up to the people. I do fear that all too often, ignorance and fear, will trump what's right.

The right to marry is indeed a civil rights issue, despite the fact that I know many African Americans bristle at the notion of comparing it to the historic plight of African Americans, or even the once ban on interracial marriages that existed in most every state in our country. Ultimately, it is about two consenting adults having the right to express their love legally regardless of what someone else may think. I have absolutely no concern that by gays being able to do so, somehow my marriage will be in jeopardy or that the whole concept of marriage will come crashing down. As has been noted by others, we heterosexuals have done a fine job on our own doing great damage to the institution.

For now, as the Prop 8 opponents prepare to carry this fight possibly to federal court, I still say we have to resign ourselves to the more mundane, which is taking this fight heart by heart, household by household, state by state. Part of me hopes that what happened in California is that progressives were simply lulled to sleep by our liberal reputation and were caught off guard. Maybe we are as liberal as advertised, but we learned not to take that for granted and certainly to not underestimate those on the conservative side of the aisle.

As to the whole idea of trusting important issues to popular vote, I still say we need to rethink that notion. I just don't think important issues should be treated akin to "American Idol" style decision making, based on who or what is the most appealing to the largest number of people, regardless of how much they really know about an issue or what their biases are. There are issues that should be about more than mere popularity.

Comments

[arx754]

The CA SC did not technically uphold ban on marriage btwn gays.. The issue put before them was whether the change to the CA Constitution to reflect that marriage is only between a man and a woman was too major a change to be made by ballot initiative vs. legislation. THAT was question put to CA SC and that is what they answered. They were not asked, for instance, to rule on whether banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. I am amazed at how many people have gotten this (the CA SC decision) wrong. Courts can only rule on what they are asked to rule on.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

With regards to the state, marriage is, first and last, a civil contract. The proof of this is that when one seeks to dissolve a marriage, they don't go to their priest, minister or rabbi to get a divorce; they go to court.

The fundamental problem with marriage in the United States is that clergy are allowed to administer the civil contract of marriage. Yes, people have to obtain a marriage licence through the public sector, but practically any ordained "minister" can perform a legal marriage once that licence is obtained.

By giving the power of the state to the clergy to administer civil contracts, the United States has blurred the line between the Separation of Church and State and allowed religious bigotry to "define" what a marriage is.

If every citizen were required to stand in front of a judge to get legally married, the incoherent rants of religious bigots would be relegated to their proper, marginal place and this whole initiative to deny gay people the franchise of marriage would be a non-starter.

To that end, there should be a counter-initiative to deny the clergy the power to perform civil contracts. I'm sure such an initiative would lose at the ballot box, but it would highlight what is a fundamental flaw and inequity in the system and might make the religious think twice before denying others their civil rights.

[LeftRight]

That's a REALLY good point! I was talking to my daughter the other day, and she didn't understand me when I told her that she and her girlfriend didn't have to have a big religious wedding in IA (the closest state to us to allow gay marriage) but could drive out there and have a CIVIL marriage and then come back home and have a big wedding!

[1849]

I believe if you go to the Secretary of State's website and look for Prop.8 in 2008 and look where it passed and where it failed you will find an interesting pattern. Eight out of nine counties in the Bay Area said No to Prop 8. while on the other hand the three largest counties in the State of California voted to pass Prop 8. I find those stats a bit more compelling. For example, Orange County a large Southern California, voted to pass Prop,8 while Prop.8 failed with a resounding NO in the two of the large Northern California Counties of Alameda San Francisco. Orange County's resounding YES on Prop.8 literally wiped out the resounding NO vote on Prop.8 in the two aforementioned counties in the north. It should be noted that Orange County probably has the highest church-going population in the state.

I have learned from previous state-wide elections in California that if you want to win, you have to win most every Northern California county plus two of three of the largest Southern California counties. Those three counties include Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego. Lose two of three Southern California counties and you will lose the election. That's where the focus of this essay should be.

Go to the California of Secretary of State's website and look at the results. There is a correalation between the results of Prop.8 and where conservatism and liberalism lives in California.

[lebensfroh99]

Democracy is rule of majority. What's the problem?

[AnotherTry]

It is this kind of ignorance that has got us where we are today.

[LeftRight]

The problem is when that majority takes away the rights of a minority!!

[confidance government]

This is where real changes in society occur, not in the courts or legislature, but rather with each conversation and interaction that helps better represent your case. I think that this is the only way to real way to make progress regarding how homosexuality and gay marriage is perceived in society.

[chicgogo]

Thanks for making the point I haven't heard from the national media but one I have tried to make. What this amounts to is a tyranny of the majority. The framers of the constitution were very much opposed to the idea of direct democracy and the majority deciding the rights of a minority. Representative government, as championed by the framers, is a check on mob rule and filters out at least to some extent the "mood of the masses."

I don't know much about this, but how did California adopt such a form of government? It's scary when you think about the possible implications of such a system. Mob rule can turn very ugly in a destabilized environment.

[lebensfroh99]

In order to check on mob rule we have secret voting (one person in a closed of voting booth). What are you saying? "How did CA adopt such a form of govt.? Do you prefer dictatorship? Theocracy? What?

[chicgogo]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of direct versus representative democracy as practiced by the various states. Obviously we had tea bagger types even back when the constitution was being drafted and this type of flash fervor and irrationalism scared the framers as much as it scares us today. Villagers with torches is what comes to mind and this is what the mood of the day can come to. Constitutional rights should not be by referendum

[MarcoLuxe]

Yes, I am ashamed of my state and the 6 Justices who cowardly reversed their earlier reasoning. [The word marriage is significant, but oops, not THAT significant, now don't give us noogies] Unfortunately we can blame history for this mess, even though I prefer to blame the Governator for twice vetoing marriage equality bills that passed both houses of the CA legislature and should have become law. Our state history of concentrated political and economic power in the railroad/l­andowners, specifically the Southern Pacific RR caused a delayed revolt that in 1911 led to the direct democracy of the "initiative". The lesson: beware the direct solution and its unintended consequences.

see http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/History_of_Initiative_and_Referendum_in_California

[NicoloM]

Earnest--
Labels such as "liberal" are so deceptive and of a limited value, even detrimental when used to create polarity. This is highlighted by the results of the Prop 8 vote, which I gather is a central point of your post.
I think it is the same argument by definition to use the "democracy" label for the CA proposition process. Voting is an aspect of democracy, but doesn't make it so (Chinese vote too.) Imagine the result if there had been a process in CA in which neighbors discussed the issue in face to face in meetings, and raised their points directly, rather than have massive amounts of money poured into advertising to shape the opinions of the isolated, the un-informed or the indifferent, who nevertheless get to vote. Advertising is a wonderful way to manipulate impulsive actions, but a horrible way to govern. I don't think that it is accurate to say that propositions allow regular folks to make law, especially given the huge financial forces involved. It is a dysfunctional process to be sure, but I'm not sure it is any more dysfunctional than representative government corrupted by the same money.
I think democracy is more what you describe in your concluding ideas, a person by person process which thankfully avoids the labels which deceive us.

[Onealtx]

Why is it so surprising that African Americans voted yes for Prop 8? The notion that African Americans don't care about the civil rights of others than themselves is not only ignorant, it completely discounts the fact that the Church has everything to do with the organization and political views of Afircan Americans. Aside from the Hispanic population - African Americans are the most churched ethnic group in the US - so for any person to believe that they on a whole would vote yes for Gay Marriage rights are wrong considering the stance that most churches make on the issues. If the constitution state that marriage is a right...th­en going federal is the best thing that could happen to this issue!
Someone wisely said...it takes many years for society to change...a­nd it will! Homosexuality is no longer a whispered issue....j­ust give it some time - and is it so wrong to accept civil unions in the mean time?

[Nommo]

Nothing happens in a vacuum. The church was pretty much the only place Black people could engage the right to free assembly. Gatherings of Black people have, historically, tended to bring out the most evil and reactionary responses from fellow white citizens. I suspect that you are having a cause and effect conundrum here.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

The composition of who voted yes for Prop 8 interests me more.

Blacks - YES = 70%, NO = 30%



I guess for some, civil rights only matter when your own civil rights aren't at stake.

[LeftRight]

Of course that's still just a tiny proportion. The ratio for white people wasn't as impressive, but the numbers sure were!!

[Disuberence]

False, etc, etc. Don't trust the media to ever tell you anything without double checking.

[1849]

Um, that was 70% of church going blacks which was no different than other ethnic group who go to church. Please look at the Secretary of State's website and line up those numbers with Community Surveys--which does what the decimal census does on a yearly basis--and you will find that age and religion where more of a factor than someone's race.

The 70% line is a bit worn out. It only serves to alienate the very people gay people need to help them gain marriage equality in California.

[JohnFromCensornati]

I never believed that CA was especially liberal outside of SF and LA.
Another myth is that Democrats are liberal, lefty progressives.

[M1]

Duh, the measure should not have even been allowed on the ballot after the California Supreme Court's ruling recognizing Gays as a protected class and marriage as a fundamental right. It is simply absurd and goes against Constitutional law principals. But, they were cowards and just hoped it would go away. If McCain and Palin types ever hold office again over time with enough hatred spread about it could be any minority group that suffers from the majority taking away one of their constitutional rights.

It would not happen over night but it could happen.

[JimR]

"The right to marry"? Sorry, but that isn't a right. It's a privilege granted by the state. That said, per the 14th Amendment, it should be granted to any 2 consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation. But let's not pretend that everyone has the "right" to get married.

Also, marriage has been, and always will be, about many things. Not all marriages are about the expression of love.

[aftershock]

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, marriage is a right. A fundamental one at that...

[Romulus]

Please cite references to back up that statement.

[rcdcr]

You are legally, constitutionally wrong.

[Michael Rowe - Huffpost Blogger]

No, Jim, it's not "a privilege.­" It can't be "a privilege" if everyone of marriageable age can do it, regardless of any other potential impediment. A privilege is selective by definition.