Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
When Does An Election Not Have Any Impact?
By Editorial Board
This editorial is not, repeat not, about the merits of gay marriage.
We understand the arguments about civil rights, fairness, et. al. We even offered a qualified recommendation to vote no against Proposition 8.
But we have to ask, what happened to the concept of the ballot box being the final say on an issue?
California’s initiative-based approach to decision making assumes that once the voters have their say, the matter is settled, at least for the time being. It certainly doesn’t preclude the losing side from trying again, either on the ballot or in the courts. It just says that is the decision of the day.
Regarding Prop. 8, the vote statewide was 5,769,939 to 5,266,794 (53.3% to 47.7%) to add an amendment to the state constitution limiting marriage to a man and a woman — eliminating the right of gay couples to marry.
Immediately after the vote tally was known, gay advocates and their supporters hit the streets, crying foul. They marched against churches, they marched down commercial corridors, they congregated in public places.
None of which is illegal, of course. And the size and passion of the crowds indicate the strength of those on the side of gay marriage.
They had plenty of support from the folks they help elect, too. Second District Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal issued a statement supporting the protesters, saying, “I support tonight’s protest of Proposition 8’s passage. Although the basic right of marriage was denied of loving couples in our community, the right to gather and speak out against unjust laws that perpetuate prejudice and second-class citizenship must never be compromised.”
In other words, we don’t like the result of the election, so we should protest until we get our own way.
These protests are, by and large, being given approval by the media and elected officialdom. After all, it’s all about fairness, right?
The question is, would the same response have taken place if the results were reversed? Would church groups have organized protests, filed lawsuits and generally vowed to overturn the will of the people if they had lost? And would that have been accepted as okay by the rest of the population?
Again, this is not about the pros and cons of gay marriage, or the legalities and definitions of marriage from a civil point of few. Lawsuits already have been filed to argue those questions.
But the basic concept of a free election is the assurance that all the people will accept the results. That doesn’t seem to be happening here.
And least frequent readers feel that this sentiment runs contrary to last week’s editorial regarding Measure I, let us be clear that we have accepted those results and are ready to move forward. That argument was about mandates, not results.
The question of gay marriage is far from resolved, and that’s fine. Continue fighting the good fight.
But don’t throw away a decision made fairly in a free election simply because you disagree with the result.
That’s not fair.
We understand the arguments about civil rights, fairness, et. al. We even offered a qualified recommendation to vote no against Proposition 8.
But we have to ask, what happened to the concept of the ballot box being the final say on an issue?
California’s initiative-based approach to decision making assumes that once the voters have their say, the matter is settled, at least for the time being. It certainly doesn’t preclude the losing side from trying again, either on the ballot or in the courts. It just says that is the decision of the day.
Regarding Prop. 8, the vote statewide was 5,769,939 to 5,266,794 (53.3% to 47.7%) to add an amendment to the state constitution limiting marriage to a man and a woman — eliminating the right of gay couples to marry.
Immediately after the vote tally was known, gay advocates and their supporters hit the streets, crying foul. They marched against churches, they marched down commercial corridors, they congregated in public places.
None of which is illegal, of course. And the size and passion of the crowds indicate the strength of those on the side of gay marriage.
They had plenty of support from the folks they help elect, too. Second District Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal issued a statement supporting the protesters, saying, “I support tonight’s protest of Proposition 8’s passage. Although the basic right of marriage was denied of loving couples in our community, the right to gather and speak out against unjust laws that perpetuate prejudice and second-class citizenship must never be compromised.”
In other words, we don’t like the result of the election, so we should protest until we get our own way.
These protests are, by and large, being given approval by the media and elected officialdom. After all, it’s all about fairness, right?
The question is, would the same response have taken place if the results were reversed? Would church groups have organized protests, filed lawsuits and generally vowed to overturn the will of the people if they had lost? And would that have been accepted as okay by the rest of the population?
Again, this is not about the pros and cons of gay marriage, or the legalities and definitions of marriage from a civil point of few. Lawsuits already have been filed to argue those questions.
But the basic concept of a free election is the assurance that all the people will accept the results. That doesn’t seem to be happening here.
And least frequent readers feel that this sentiment runs contrary to last week’s editorial regarding Measure I, let us be clear that we have accepted those results and are ready to move forward. That argument was about mandates, not results.
The question of gay marriage is far from resolved, and that’s fine. Continue fighting the good fight.
But don’t throw away a decision made fairly in a free election simply because you disagree with the result.
That’s not fair.
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of gazettes.com.
ludwig wrote on Nov 19, 2008 7:43 PM:
" First of all the chief thing that was wrong with the ballot vote is that it was illegal under the US Constitution by reason of who put this on the ballot---religious groups and their front organizations who are trying to make their canon laws civil law. This fascist group essentially mutinied against the California Supreme Court and violated some of the basic rights of all courts---to review cases among many other rights of courts. They have allowed the Vatican to transgress against the Sovereignty of the United States by supporting Prop 8 in their financial contributions. The Pope as head of State has no right to make laws of the United States or influence the State, local or Federal Governments;
The Court found that denying gay people the right to marry was unconstitutional. Other State Supreme Courts have also agreed/concurred. The Connecticut State Supreme Court found that Civil Unions are inherently unequal and thus granted marriage rights to gay people so that if they wish they can also have families just as heterosexual couples do.
Therefore, no matter if the Prop 8 law remains the law of the land ---it is still just as unconstitutional as denying anyone their civil rights because of their skin color. When people and groups are unjustly discriminated against as Prop 8 does ---not only does it hurt the person and individual groups but it also hurts society as well---How many people of color could have made these United States greater but did not simply because of the prejustice and discrimination against them.
These Prop 8 people are using fallacious arguments as to why Prop 8 should be the law of the land. They have gone to nearly every state of the Union claiming that Marriage needs to be protected and because they claim it needs to be protected are persecuting gay people. Well, gay people are not causing the break up of marriages and in States that have been foolish enough to buy this argument---marriages are still breaking up as they were before such amendments and laws. Gay people have nothing to do with the destruction of the family. (In fact, gay relationships are more often that not far more stable than heterosexual ones and they make very good parents). When this argument does not work then Prop 8 folks start in on the Bible and in doing so reveal their ignorance of Biology and the advances of reproductive science in which not only heterosexual people can have biological children but also same sex couples. In matters of State; the Bible is irrelevant because of the separation clauses. Prop 8 folks are the same people who want to get religion in bed with the state and are the same ones that tried to get the mythic pseudo-science of creationism into public school systems across the US.
If we do not stand up to them---no one will have any freedoms at all, except what the Dominant Taliban Church allows. We may have the right to worship freely but we also have the right to be free of religion and its influence.
The other reason the Prop 8 folks like to cite is that the only reason to get married is that to procreate. This is fallacious and reduces marriage to a whoredom and if that is the only reason to marry then no wonder families are breaking up. Many heterosexual couples do not want children and marry for companionship and other reasons. Others want children but cannot have them---since they cannot have children then should not the right of marriage be taken from them? Several people have remarked that they have been married up to 50 years and same sex marriages have not cheapened or made their marriage less sacred.
If same sex marriage is recognized by the State of California----it will not affect them in anyway. Who marries who is no one’s business and is a violation of privacy rights. The case law citations of this are many including Lawrence vs. Texas, Roe vs. Wade, and Loving vs. Virginia. et al.
Prop sets up a special class of people--Heterosexuals. The prop 8 folks have said in the past that gay people should not have special rights---is this not hypocritical? Prop 8 also violates the Unruh act. It should also be ruled invalid because of incompetent voters who have or had no understanding or the United States Constitution much less ever had read it and voted their religion instead of supporting the Constitution. Did these people ever have a civics or American History course or were they asleep in class?
Same sex marriages are recognized in nearly all of the European Countries, South Africa, Nepal , Brazil; Mexico, Canada and in several states of the United States.
In the final analysis, the prop 8 yes folks do not have any good logical reason for their actions other than out right paranoia (see You Tube) gay bashing, homophobia and the fear that same sex marriage will spread like a disease to other states. That is not reason enough to ban it. What business is it that Tom and Marty marry or Julie and Joan or Tom and Gerald? None ----otherwise it is a violation of their rights to privacy. "
The Court found that denying gay people the right to marry was unconstitutional. Other State Supreme Courts have also agreed/concurred. The Connecticut State Supreme Court found that Civil Unions are inherently unequal and thus granted marriage rights to gay people so that if they wish they can also have families just as heterosexual couples do.
Therefore, no matter if the Prop 8 law remains the law of the land ---it is still just as unconstitutional as denying anyone their civil rights because of their skin color. When people and groups are unjustly discriminated against as Prop 8 does ---not only does it hurt the person and individual groups but it also hurts society as well---How many people of color could have made these United States greater but did not simply because of the prejustice and discrimination against them.
These Prop 8 people are using fallacious arguments as to why Prop 8 should be the law of the land. They have gone to nearly every state of the Union claiming that Marriage needs to be protected and because they claim it needs to be protected are persecuting gay people. Well, gay people are not causing the break up of marriages and in States that have been foolish enough to buy this argument---marriages are still breaking up as they were before such amendments and laws. Gay people have nothing to do with the destruction of the family. (In fact, gay relationships are more often that not far more stable than heterosexual ones and they make very good parents). When this argument does not work then Prop 8 folks start in on the Bible and in doing so reveal their ignorance of Biology and the advances of reproductive science in which not only heterosexual people can have biological children but also same sex couples. In matters of State; the Bible is irrelevant because of the separation clauses. Prop 8 folks are the same people who want to get religion in bed with the state and are the same ones that tried to get the mythic pseudo-science of creationism into public school systems across the US.
If we do not stand up to them---no one will have any freedoms at all, except what the Dominant Taliban Church allows. We may have the right to worship freely but we also have the right to be free of religion and its influence.
The other reason the Prop 8 folks like to cite is that the only reason to get married is that to procreate. This is fallacious and reduces marriage to a whoredom and if that is the only reason to marry then no wonder families are breaking up. Many heterosexual couples do not want children and marry for companionship and other reasons. Others want children but cannot have them---since they cannot have children then should not the right of marriage be taken from them? Several people have remarked that they have been married up to 50 years and same sex marriages have not cheapened or made their marriage less sacred.
If same sex marriage is recognized by the State of California----it will not affect them in anyway. Who marries who is no one’s business and is a violation of privacy rights. The case law citations of this are many including Lawrence vs. Texas, Roe vs. Wade, and Loving vs. Virginia. et al.
Prop sets up a special class of people--Heterosexuals. The prop 8 folks have said in the past that gay people should not have special rights---is this not hypocritical? Prop 8 also violates the Unruh act. It should also be ruled invalid because of incompetent voters who have or had no understanding or the United States Constitution much less ever had read it and voted their religion instead of supporting the Constitution. Did these people ever have a civics or American History course or were they asleep in class?
Same sex marriages are recognized in nearly all of the European Countries, South Africa, Nepal , Brazil; Mexico, Canada and in several states of the United States.
In the final analysis, the prop 8 yes folks do not have any good logical reason for their actions other than out right paranoia (see You Tube) gay bashing, homophobia and the fear that same sex marriage will spread like a disease to other states. That is not reason enough to ban it. What business is it that Tom and Marty marry or Julie and Joan or Tom and Gerald? None ----otherwise it is a violation of their rights to privacy. "
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
ludwig wrote on Nov 19, 2008 7:36 PM:
The Court found that denying gay people the right to marry was unconstitutional. Other State Supreme Courts have also agreed/concurred. The Connecticut State Supreme Court found that Civil Unions are inherently unequal and thus granted marriage rights to gay people so that if they wish they can also have families just as heterosexual couples do.
Therefore, no matter if the Prop 8 law remains the law of the land ---it is still just as unconstitutional as denying anyone their civil rights because of their skin color. When people and groups are unjustly discriminated against as Prop 8 does ---not only does it hurt the person and individual groups but it also hurts society as well---How many people of color could have made these United States greater but did not simply because of the prejustice and discrimination against them.
These Prop 8 people are using fallacious arguments as to why Prop 8 should be the law of the land. They have gone to nearly every state of the Union claiming that Marriage needs to be protected and because they claim it needs to be protected are persecuting gay people. Well, gay people are not causing the break up of marriages and in States that have been foolish enough to buy this argument---marriages are still breaking up as they were before such amendments and laws. Gay people have nothing to do with the destruction of the family. (In fact, gay relationships are more often that not far more stable than heterosexual ones and they make very good parents). When this argument does not work then Prop 8 folks start in on the Bible and in doing so reveal their ignorance of Biology and the advances of reproductive science in which not only heterosexual people can have biological children but also same sex couples. In matters of State; the Bible is irrelevant because of the separation clauses. Prop 8 folks are the same people who want to get religion in bed with the state and are the same ones that tried to get the mythic pseudo-science of creationism into public school systems across the US.
If we do not stand up to them---no one will have any freedoms at all, except what the Dominant Taliban Church allows. We may have the right to worship freely but we also have the right to be free of religion and its influence.
The other reason the Prop 8 folks like to cite is that the only reason to get married is that to procreate. This is fallacious and reduces marriage to a whoredom and if that is the only reason to marry then no wonder families are breaking up. Many heterosexual couples do not want children and marry for companionship and other reasons. Others want children but cannot have them---since they cannot have children then should not the right of marriage be taken from them? Several people have remarked that they have been "