The Democrats, aided by the government-subsidized ACORN group, have made it their mission over the past few election cycles to get out the vote, primarily the minority vote to ensure our country is more representative of its constituency. As the decision in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) opined, "one man, one vote." The Democrats have put forth a phenomenal effort to register and get more (even by driving them) blacks and Hispanics to the polling booths. Indeed, in this election most people acknowledge that minorities made up the statistical difference in propelling Obama into the White House. Yes, the Democratic coalition achieved their mission and Barack was elected! But, oops. What went wrong with Proposition 8 in California?
It is requisite that I provide a quick background to the gay marriage issue in California.
(1) In 2000 the residents of CA approved a state referendum, called Proposition 22, that banned same-sex marriages.
I must explain something about the CA system. California, like many other western states, has a great deal of pride in citing their revolutionary, democratic system which allows for much greater democratic action by the average citizen(s). The tools they have are recall, referendum and initiative. Most states in the midwest and east do NOT allow citizens to do what CA and other western states do. Each one of the options requires a minimum number of signatures for it to be placed on the statewide ballot. A recall is a move by the citizens to have an elected member of the CA government removed from office. CA successfully made this happen in 2003 when they removed Governor Gray Davis from office. It subsequently led to an emergency election in which Arnold became governor. A referendum is the citizen's tool to repeal a state law by means of a statewide vote, which is what happened in 2000 - the citizens voted against a state law allowing gay marriages. An initiative is a method for the citizens to create a new law or constitutional amendment in CA. As you can see, these techniques are very democratic, and not practiced in many other states but highlighted with great pride by Californians.
(2) In 2004 San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsome, violated state laws and allowed for the city to grant legal marriages to same-sex couples. His actions resulted in a four year legal battle in the courts over the constitutionality of the "Defense of Marriage Act," or Prop.22.
(3) The issue finally made it the California State Supreme Court (not U.S. Supreme Court), and on May 16, 2008 by a 4-3 vote the seven-member-court struck down the state-wide approved measure of Prop.22. Their decision would into effect 30 days later, which was a bad logistical decision. After their decision another 18,000 same-sex marriages occurred between June and the recent vote. An intelligent court would have done what is called, "staying the decision," which means they passed a decision, but they would wait to enact it until AFTER the people voted on the upcoming constitutional amendment because if the amendment passed then the court's decision would be nullified - including the 18,000 new marriages. But as I said, a smart court would have done so.
(4) On November 4, 2008 by way of a statewide initiative the voters of CA approved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, which makes the courts' actions null and void presently AND in the future because the language will now be explicitly part of the CA constitution.
(5) One caveat. The CA supreme court has the power to review the new amendment because any initiative to the CA constitution may only amend (add to) its structure rather than change existing statutes. It will come down, again, to interpretation.
Now to the facts for the point of this piece, take a look at who voted for the passage of the CA amendment to ban same sex marriages and ALSO for Obama:
(a) Blacks in CA voted 95% for Obama, yet 70% voted to ban same-sex marriage
(b) Latinos in CA voted 70% for Obama, yet 55% voted to ban same-sex marriage
(c) Catholics in CA voted 59% for Obama, yet 64% voted to ban same-sex marriage
President-elect Barack Obama was on record for telling CA to vote AGAINST the ban.
(d) The total vote was 53% in favor of banning and 47% opposed.
What was the activists' response to the result of the most democratically known way in the world to decide public policy, and championed by liberals everywhere, and historically lauded by Californians as true democracy....? Riots! Riots, in the true form of those by the Jacobins during France's experiment with true democracy. Well, law suits too of course.
Here are some observations...
(1) Mayor Gavin Newsome "compared the ruling (of the CA Supreme Court) to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Virginia case overturning the state's ban on interracial marriage. 'This is about civil marriage. This is about fundamental rights,'" he said.
Well, 70% of CA blacks and 55% of CA Latinos do not agree with Newsome's civil rights argument.
In the vein of Bill Maher, I tell you what, I for one am certainly tired of those religious right folks constantly duping minorities into believing in some imaginary higher power that will save them from themselves if they just commit to believing that He can make all of our wishes and dreams come true.
(2) After learning that Proposition 8 passed, one angry man commented, "53% is no decisive majority, and certainly doesn't represent significant parts of California."
Dan Froomkin wrote in the Washington Post yesterday that the people of America spoke "clear and loud...and decisively," when they elected Barack Obama; he captured 53% of the vote.
I think the disgruntled man really meant to say, that Goddamn ACORN group got too many minorities to the polls on Tuesday.
(3) Liberals consistently champion democratic ideas of getting everyone to vote, then when it happens contrary to their desired outcomes they RIOT and condemn other people's myopic view of life.
I know, I know - a few bad apples jumping on police cars, etc. ought not to spoil the bunch. I remember those fomenting that rationalization now also made it when the media frenzy erupted over a few soldiers' action in Abu-Ghrab. You all did recognize the difference then, that you would like recognize now...right? Goddamn Joseph Heller.
Yossarian was right...."Goddamn Catch-22."
Actually, I think we can finally put Yossarian to rest.
We have a new bombardier in America and his catch-phrase is, "Goddamn America."
Or, is it God Bless after November 4th?
No comments:
Post a Comment