Several years ago, California voters passed Proposition 22, establishing that marriage in the state of California is between one man and one woman. There was a vote of more than 60% in favor of the proposition, so one cannot even argue that it represented a slim majority imposing its will on the state -- the vote was overwhelming.

On Monday, the California Assembly gave the people of California the finger by passing legislation that runs directly contrary to the express wish of the people.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated he will veto the bill.

Schwarzenegger's spokeswoman defended the governor's position, saying he continues to back gay rights, including domestic partnership programs that grant same-sex couples most of the rights enjoyed by married couples. She noted that in 2000 California's voters expressed their views on the marriage issue, passing by more than 60 percent Proposition 22, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Why does Arnold take this position? It might have something to do with the California Constitution (bold mine).

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL SEC. 10.

(a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect.

(b) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.

(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.

(d) Prior to circulation of an initiative or referendum petition for signatures, a copy shall be submitted to the Attorney General who shall prepare a title and summary of the measure as provided by law.

(e) The Legislature shall provide the manner in which petitions shall be circulated, presented, and certified, and measures submitted to the electors.

Since the recently passed legislation has the effect of repealing Proposition 22, a vote of the people is required. However, the legislation does not provide for the constitutionally mandated vote, and is therefore in direct defiance of the California Constitution. One has to recognize this legislation as totally flawed, regardless of one's position on the issue of homosexual marriage. That mandates support for the veto.

Supporters of the legislation, of course, don't want a little thing like constitutional law to get in the way of getting what they want. Take this argument.

The legislature didn't "derail" any vote. Proposition 22 was not voted on by the current California populace. Many of those who voted on Prop 22 are now dead, massive amounts of new voters have entered the pool and in the 5 years since that legislation passed many voters have changed their mind (according to polling data). It is the new California voting population who decided (AFTER Prop 22) that these current politicians (the ones who passed the equality bill) were fit to represent them. Now these politicians have done what they were elected to do and if anybody is "derailing" the will of the CURRENT voting population of California it is Schwarzenegger.

Unfortunately for the owner of that blog, it makes as much sense to argue that as it does to argue that Congress could reinstitute slavery without repealing the Thirteenth Amendment, since they represent the will of the people today and the Thirteenth Amendment represents the will of the people 140 years ago. Any rational person recognizes the flaw in both the posters original argument and the hypothetical I put forth -- both situations would ignore the process mandated by the respective constitutions to take the course of action in question.

Of course, many supporters of homosexual marriage are not anywhere near as intellectual as my old friend dolphin is. Take this example (heck, take the whole thread) from Americablog, where there is outrage that Maria has not forced Arnold to sign the bill.

The Arnold is a Nazi Whore with a wife that loves his fame and money. She sold out her principles when she married this 8 inch 2 around uncut salami that gets more action than the Deli cold cut Of The DAy. Don't think for a minute he isn't available for influential men and wealthy ladies who love nothing more than to get serviced by the German Stud Meister. His body and brain have turned to mush and he can't comprehed that Sheldon et.al.will dump him in a heart beat, once they have used him on the gay marriage thing. He's not the darling of the radical right wing. He's a flabby slob that will never be returned to office, no matter who he diddles. It's over for him. He's sold himself to the highest bidder, slavik accent and all. Besides, he's not Sheldon's type, Mitt Romney is.

Much of the rest of the thread is the same, by the way, unless it gets cleaned up. And they say that conservatives are the hateful folks. Is it any wonder that we do not take them seriously?.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 896 words, total size 6 kb.