Ya Just Can't Keep 'Em Down In California
Well, it's that special time again. That time to decide whether gay marriage should go on the ballot in California. The Fresno Bee has an interesting article on it, laying out some of the thought process behind the question.
You can put a question on the ballot like this about every two years in California, so, in the big picture, it's conceivable that you could put Prop 8 on the ballot every two years, like clockwork, until voters it down just to keep from seeing it again. Not so much "Vote No" on Prop 8 as "Vote No, No, Enough Already, Get Married, Just Shut Up About It, Yeesh" on Prop 8. Which would have the same effect, yet with that touch of tacky that would make it truly fit in with recent California politics. (And perhaps not so recent; Milk occasionally hints that this might be how Harvey Milk got elected supervisor.)
There are some good reasons to put Prop 8 back on the ballot right away, of course. The country is on a roll here, the GOP is flushing its credibility down the toilet and eating its own, what better time will there ever be? And there are some other good reasons to wait until 2012. The same voters who voted for Prop 8 won't have forgotten why they did it, after all.
After reading this article, however, I'm kind of inclined towards waiting until 2012, albeit for different reasons. Towards the end, the reporter goes into the tales of how it was the droves of African-American and Hispanic voters that upheld Prop 8, and mentions that the 2010 election will draw a smaller, whiter turnout.
Excuse me?
I could have sworn that story was discredited months ago -- it's why people are still mad at Dan Savage, for cri Pete! (These people are foolish, but that's another story.) But what's more disturbing is this: if it is true that a wider, more racially diverse voter turnout will support Prop 8 where a smaller, whiter turnout will repeal it . . . isn't waiting for the small white turnout cheating? The whole point of putting gay marriage on a ballot instead of going through the courts is to prove that It's What The People Want. Well, if it's true that a large diverse crowd of voters will vote it down . . . maybe, just maybe, gay marriage is not what the people of California actually want. Jiggering the election is just underhanded.
If you want to usher in progressive change against the will of the majority of voters (as has been done before and sometimes needs to be done, regardless of what the Sierra Club tries to tell me), then at least have the guts to be honest about it and go through the courts like Massachusetts did. Either ignore the will of the majority or go with it, but don't jigger an election. That's just cruel. Dear California, you've already lost so much of your credibility since that ridiculous recall election that gave you the Governator. Please try to retain at least a scrap of your dignity, and don't jigger an election. If you think you can win honestly, then do it. If you don't, well, ask Massachusetts for their court case records. But playing off race against sexuality never ever looks good.
You can put a question on the ballot like this about every two years in California, so, in the big picture, it's conceivable that you could put Prop 8 on the ballot every two years, like clockwork, until voters it down just to keep from seeing it again. Not so much "Vote No" on Prop 8 as "Vote No, No, Enough Already, Get Married, Just Shut Up About It, Yeesh" on Prop 8. Which would have the same effect, yet with that touch of tacky that would make it truly fit in with recent California politics. (And perhaps not so recent; Milk occasionally hints that this might be how Harvey Milk got elected supervisor.)
There are some good reasons to put Prop 8 back on the ballot right away, of course. The country is on a roll here, the GOP is flushing its credibility down the toilet and eating its own, what better time will there ever be? And there are some other good reasons to wait until 2012. The same voters who voted for Prop 8 won't have forgotten why they did it, after all.
After reading this article, however, I'm kind of inclined towards waiting until 2012, albeit for different reasons. Towards the end, the reporter goes into the tales of how it was the droves of African-American and Hispanic voters that upheld Prop 8, and mentions that the 2010 election will draw a smaller, whiter turnout.
Excuse me?
I could have sworn that story was discredited months ago -- it's why people are still mad at Dan Savage, for cri Pete! (These people are foolish, but that's another story.) But what's more disturbing is this: if it is true that a wider, more racially diverse voter turnout will support Prop 8 where a smaller, whiter turnout will repeal it . . . isn't waiting for the small white turnout cheating? The whole point of putting gay marriage on a ballot instead of going through the courts is to prove that It's What The People Want. Well, if it's true that a large diverse crowd of voters will vote it down . . . maybe, just maybe, gay marriage is not what the people of California actually want. Jiggering the election is just underhanded.
If you want to usher in progressive change against the will of the majority of voters (as has been done before and sometimes needs to be done, regardless of what the Sierra Club tries to tell me), then at least have the guts to be honest about it and go through the courts like Massachusetts did. Either ignore the will of the majority or go with it, but don't jigger an election. That's just cruel. Dear California, you've already lost so much of your credibility since that ridiculous recall election that gave you the Governator. Please try to retain at least a scrap of your dignity, and don't jigger an election. If you think you can win honestly, then do it. If you don't, well, ask Massachusetts for their court case records. But playing off race against sexuality never ever looks good.