Thursday, November 13, 2008

Populism Is Still Kicking

The success of Proposition 8 in California means the people have not rolled over and quit on self-government by majority rule in a free and democratic society.

I'm conflicted over homosexuality because I have known people and read credible stories about people who have prayed on their knees to God for an attraction to the opposite sex, but to no avail.

I definitely draw the line when people go beyond toleration to endorsement, forcing people in all manner of ways to accommodate homosexuality.

But let's forget about the subject matter and instead celebrate the political process functioning properly.

Defining marriage is a public policy issue. The California Supreme Court did what courts often do these days -- it exceeded its judicial mandate and decided to make public policy from the bench by legalizing same-sex marriage.

The people decided to take back their policy-making authority by passing a state constitutional amendment that says marriage is only between a man and woman.

Procedurally, that's the way it should be. I realize there are protests against the amendment, but they have no true basis for success. The constitution is the direct expression of the will of the people and it supersedes a court decision. As long as no laws were broken in getting the proposed amendment on the ballot, that should be the end of it.

2 comments:

Eric said...

Unfortunately, just like with all the other gay marriage bans, an opportunity was missed to properly define traditional marriage. I doubt we're ever going to have the chance again to ban polygamy.

OmaSteak said...

It would be a good idea for NE to adopt provisions which make voter initiatives not subject to legal review of any type after the election has been held. There should be a set deadline for introduction of such initiatives and a drop-dead date for any court ruling related to that initiative of at least 60 days prior to the relevant election date. The Prop 8 amendment which passed in CA will be overturned by the CA supreme court just like the last one was...probably by another 5-4 vote like last time. Looks like CA and all other states sorely need an amendment which more clearly defines the why/how/when/where courts can or should be involved. What's the over/under on when a challenge to NE's defense of marriage amendment will be made by a homosexual couple legally married in another state? I'm sure the NE ACLU can't wait for that one.