Prop 8...
We, as Californians, have typically been "ahead of the curve" when it comes to civil rights issues, but yesterday we voted to deal a devastating blow to the issue that will likely be seen in the future as the watershed issue in the civil rights movement of our day. I know that I'm preaching to the choir, but I felt that I should express not only my dismay that we, as Californians, have voted for Proposition 8, but why I am disappointed in us.
The Constitution should be a shield, not a sword. The Constitution exists to protect those in the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The clearest example of this is the Federal and State protections of free speech. The protection of free speech exists solely to protect the ability to express an unpopular opinion, since popular opinions are typically not in danger of censorship. We protect the minority because as political fortunes shift, this minority may one day be us. This IS the American way. This IS the California way. Yesterday, we turned this entire principle on its ear, and instead chose to amend the California Constitution to use as a weapon targeted at a single minority group, and rather than protect a right, we chose to strip away a right. We should be ashamed.
A lot of people have told me that gay marriage wasn't a right, that it was something that a court made up. I would not only like to not only remind anyone holding that opinion with the fact that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution, but point out that this is certainly not unprecedented.
In 1954 the United States Supreme Court made an exceptionally unpopular decision in Brown v. Board of Education, in which it held that segregated schools were unconstitutional, rejecting their earlier ruling that you could have "separate but equal" schools (in hindsight they understood that a "separate" school cannot, in fact, be "equal"). Imagine, if you will, what would have happened if a Federal initiative process existed that would allow the Federal Constitution to be amended by a simple majority vote of the population, like we have in California.
If such a process existed, would there be any doubt that during the next election there would be an initiative to amend the Constitution to make segregated schools constitutional?
Such a proposition would be an easy sell in the South, and a number of other communities throughout the United States. Elsewhere, it would be less popular, but the right fear-based advertising would sway opinion. Given the rhetoric of the time, the argument would probably center around the fear that if a black boy went to your daughter's school, she'd be raped and end up with an illegitimate black baby. Of course, the actual ad would probably not be so polite about it. I use the term "illegitimate," of course, because bans on interracial marriage weren't held unconstitutional until 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. After a few months of these ads, even the most progressive middle-class suburban voter would be scarred to send their children to school, and probably enough would vote to support a Constitutional amendment to alleviate the fear.
If a California-style initiative process existed at the Federal level, we would still be living in a segregated world.
Does any of this sound familiar? The California Supreme Court held that we could not have "separate but equal" institutions of domestic partnerships and civil marriage. We've undergone millions of dollars in fearful "keep the gays away from the kids" ads, and they've worked. We've now done the moral equivalent of voting segregation into the Constitution.
Although I believe I may one day live to see the day that we correct this horrendous mistake, this has fundamentally shaken my faith in my fellow Californians. One day history will look back at our actions, and measure us. I am afraid that on this issue we will be found lacking.
EDIT:
After some time to reflect, I remain optimistic that the State Supreme Court will strike Proposition 8 as invalid, but my disappointment in the majority of Californians that gave into fear and prejudice remains.
The Constitution should be a shield, not a sword. The Constitution exists to protect those in the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The clearest example of this is the Federal and State protections of free speech. The protection of free speech exists solely to protect the ability to express an unpopular opinion, since popular opinions are typically not in danger of censorship. We protect the minority because as political fortunes shift, this minority may one day be us. This IS the American way. This IS the California way. Yesterday, we turned this entire principle on its ear, and instead chose to amend the California Constitution to use as a weapon targeted at a single minority group, and rather than protect a right, we chose to strip away a right. We should be ashamed.
A lot of people have told me that gay marriage wasn't a right, that it was something that a court made up. I would not only like to not only remind anyone holding that opinion with the fact that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution, but point out that this is certainly not unprecedented.
In 1954 the United States Supreme Court made an exceptionally unpopular decision in Brown v. Board of Education, in which it held that segregated schools were unconstitutional, rejecting their earlier ruling that you could have "separate but equal" schools (in hindsight they understood that a "separate" school cannot, in fact, be "equal"). Imagine, if you will, what would have happened if a Federal initiative process existed that would allow the Federal Constitution to be amended by a simple majority vote of the population, like we have in California.
If such a process existed, would there be any doubt that during the next election there would be an initiative to amend the Constitution to make segregated schools constitutional?
Such a proposition would be an easy sell in the South, and a number of other communities throughout the United States. Elsewhere, it would be less popular, but the right fear-based advertising would sway opinion. Given the rhetoric of the time, the argument would probably center around the fear that if a black boy went to your daughter's school, she'd be raped and end up with an illegitimate black baby. Of course, the actual ad would probably not be so polite about it. I use the term "illegitimate," of course, because bans on interracial marriage weren't held unconstitutional until 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. After a few months of these ads, even the most progressive middle-class suburban voter would be scarred to send their children to school, and probably enough would vote to support a Constitutional amendment to alleviate the fear.
If a California-style initiative process existed at the Federal level, we would still be living in a segregated world.
Does any of this sound familiar? The California Supreme Court held that we could not have "separate but equal" institutions of domestic partnerships and civil marriage. We've undergone millions of dollars in fearful "keep the gays away from the kids" ads, and they've worked. We've now done the moral equivalent of voting segregation into the Constitution.
Although I believe I may one day live to see the day that we correct this horrendous mistake, this has fundamentally shaken my faith in my fellow Californians. One day history will look back at our actions, and measure us. I am afraid that on this issue we will be found lacking.
EDIT:
After some time to reflect, I remain optimistic that the State Supreme Court will strike Proposition 8 as invalid, but my disappointment in the majority of Californians that gave into fear and prejudice remains.