creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
16 Feb 2012
Food and Conscience

Factory farming and its abuses were once the province of an eccentric minority that invited ridicule and scorn.… Read More.

12 Feb 2012
False Fears About a Nuclear Iran

"The stupidest thing I have ever heard." — Meir Dagan, former head of Israel's intelligence agency,… Read More.

9 Feb 2012
Appease This!

On April 1, 2001, a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter collided over the South China Sea, forcing the … Read More.

Gay Marriage vs. Democracy

Share Comment

You can catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar, the adage goes. But advocates of same-sex marriage have a deal for the citizens of California: all the vinegar they can drink.

Those citizens don't believe gays should be allowed to unite under the name of marriage. In 2000, more than 61 percent of voters supported a ballot measure barring such unions. That didn't mean the voters get their way. Last summer, the state Supreme Court struck the law down on the ground that it violated the California Constitution by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

But Californians were not content to let the court substitute its judgment for theirs. In November, they approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, with a 52 percent majority. If the constitution required recognition of same-sex marriage, the people decided, the constitution needed correcting.

That should have been the end of the legal battle and the beginning of a political one, where gay rights have excellent prospects. After all, they have made steady progress on the issue, expanding their support from 39 percent of voters to 48 percent in just eight years. Given the trend, their chances of persuading a majority in the next few years look good — if they were to focus on persuading the majority.

But this is a tedious and time-consuming task compared to trying to get the state Supreme Court to nullify the will of the people. So opponents of Proposition 8 chose the latter option after their defeat.

And for what end? Not so that gays can have the full package of rights and duties that go with the institution of matrimony. They already have those — insofar as the state of California can provide them — thanks to a domestic partnership law that duplicates everything about marriage except the name. This is not a fight over fundamental equality. It's a fight over nomenclature.

On Thursday, the fight went back to the Supreme Court in San Francisco, where state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown insisted that the people of California, who created the constitution, don't have the power to change it as they tried to do this time.

He argued that it protects pre-existing inalienable rights, including the right to marry, and that an inalienable right "cannot be taken away by a popular vote."

But inalienable rights are empty concepts without legal protection — which in this case they enjoy only because of a constitution approved by the people. If those people had wanted to deny themselves the power to repeal rights protected by the state constitution, they could have included a provision to do that. They didn't.

Instead, they erred on the side of making it easy to amend their charter. Any limits on that power, beyond those imposed by the federal constitution, exist only in the mind of legal fantasists.

It was one thing to demand that the state Supreme Court overrule the will of the people once, and on a mere law. It's quite another to ask it to repudiate their verdict again, after they had decided to alter the constitution precisely to reverse a decision of the Supreme Court.

The justices apparently were not enchanted by the invitation. "We would like to hear from you why the court can willy-nilly disregard the will of the people to change the constitution," Justice Joyce Kennard told the lawyers urging the invalidation of Proposition 8.

Kennard, it should be noted, was among the justices who voted last year to legalize same-sex marriage. So did Chief Justice Ronald George, who Thursday suggested that the current method of amendment "is the system we have to live with until and unless it is changed."

The nice thing about the referendum option is that once gay-marriage supporters constitute a majority, they can promptly amend the constitution to their liking — as I hope they do. But it is hard to win voters to your side while telling them they have no legitimate say on the issue.

Like it or not, the California Constitution notes a basic truth in a democratic society: "All political power is inherent in the people." Advocates of same-sex marriage might do better by treating those people not as opponents to be defeated but as allies to be won.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;....Government has to be two things to be successful and good... Each needs to be fair, and each needs to be effective... If it is not fair it does not matter how effective it is because good will not come out of it; and if it is not effective, it does not matter how fair it is because good will not come out of it.... You should realize that we have majority rule and executive powers as concessions to effectivness...That does not mean we should abandon fairness.... All true democracies seek consensus, and we have examples in near times where some societies would settle for nothing less than consensus...They were not fast, but incredibly fair... And it is consensus we should seek... If we need speed, it has been provided for...When the need for haste has passed, everyone should remember that the object of democracy is to protect all the rights of all the people... And who should decide??? Ultimately no one can define your right for you....You know what you find essential in your life...And in a democracy you shall have it if there is no conflict between your rights and another's... Now; there is nothing in homosexual marriage or in homosexuality in general which conflicts with other rights as conceived....On the contrary, it is religious rights as conceived which conflict with many other rights as conceived.... There would be no problem if people of religion took their rights to worship as they saw fit...They take their right to freedom of religion to appoint themselves moral policemen.... And they would accept no majority interference with their rights to worship, and everyone knows this; so they are using the construction of our government to their ends; and not for it s true purpose, of giving good...Now; defense is one clearly defined goal of our government, among many... It is not just the defense of the land, but of the whole people....And defense of the whole people is not just general defense, but defense of individuals from each other, even from majorities... There will always be points of division between the people... If these points are turned to a denial of rights, as they have often been, then the whole society is made weak....Now; clearly some people are using the denial of rights to empower themselves politically, using the desire, quite natural to some, to deny rights to their fellows, as a rallying point of political unity that is, infact, divisive.....If majorities can be turned against minorities, there is no natural end to it... As minorities are whittled away at, more can be made to join them until the whole of society is a shell holding only slaves and masters....That is not our object; but liberty and justice for all, which we have all been sworn to... Gays are not the enemies here, and not blacks, or any other minority.... The real enemy of all is majority rule which is not democratic, but an open invitation to demagoguery.... All must be brought along... The society must work for all, and give rights to all... Only true democracy seeking consensus will ultimately be fair, and that fairness must underly any demand for haste... Thanks....Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Mar 8, 2009 12:21 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

25 Dec 2011 For Public Safety, a New Golden Age

10 Oct 2010 How To Profit by Expanding Freedom

7 Aug 2008 Old-Fashioned Paternalism Is Back