Just eight years ago, Proposition 22 was passed, 61.4 to 38.6 percent. The much narrower victory of Proposition 8 suggests that minds are moving toward toleration of same-sex marriage. If advocates of that have the patience required by democratic persuasion, California's ongoing conversation may end as they hope. If, however, the conversation is truncated, as Brown urges, by judicial fiat, the argument will become as embittered as the argument about abortion has been by judicial highhandedness.Sullivan goes on to say:
What I say: I agree, fellas. In the long run, it will be much, much better for us to win this particular fight in California at the polls, in a free and fair vote.I'm emotionally conflicted on this. As someone who has spent much of my adult life making the case for gay equality and for civil marriage as the sine qua non of such equality, I'd love marriage to be real in California for all Californians. But intellectually, I'm not conflicted. I'm with George. . . .
But as a political matter - and this is a political struggle - I hope the court decides to allow Prop 8 to stand. I do not want civil equality imposed by judicial fiat in the most populous state in America - in the face of a close initiative vote. It would be a horribly pyrrhic victory. It would taint this movement's power and message and moral standing. . . .
The court did its duty and its 2008 ruling is part of civil rights history. It need not force this now, and shouldn't. Let's put this to a referendum again. And let's do the hard work to win.
That way, nobody can ever say it wasn't a democratic decision. Nobody can fuck with it then. And nobody can fuck with our right to equal respect and dignity.
But what are we - you and you and you and me - willing to do to gain that victory, and the others to come in Congress and across the nation? WE are the ones we've been waiting for . . . . And isn't that what democracy is all about, huh?
3 comments:
I'm going to have to disagree (while still respecting your position!). I just can't get my head around my right to civil marriage, and the legal and financial protections it affords, coming only by popular vote.
Civil rights were never fully secured through the mobocracy. It takes the courage of justices to right such wrongs.
Don't get me wrong; winning hearts and minds is important. But the whole "tyranny of the majority" axiom applies in this situation, IMHO.
I actually agree with both stances. It hardly seems victorious by the courts but then no other civil rights have ever been voted on either, why should ours? I think both things in concert is the way to go. It never should have been brought before the voters to begin with.
Post a Comment