Californians have shown their true colors in politics
| Monday, Jun 15 2009 04:00 PM
Last Updated Monday, Jun 15 2009 04:00 PM
Loading Stories
Advertisement
What does it mean to be a Californian? If you travel to another state in the union, you soon discover the mystique that permeates California. It is perceived as a land of glamour and possibility and ease, where movie stars congregate on street corners, where the weather statewide is always like a good day in San Diego. Along with its citrus crop, California exports fresh ideas, good vibes and the latest flairs in fashion.
The image of Californians is that we do things unconventionally. We do things first. We're the forward-thinkers of the nation.
I do wish that last perception were true. I wish we lived up to our reputation. Instead, I think we have become the backward-thinkers, who should be alarmed at the direction in which our state is going.
I'm talking about Proposition 8, which was upheld by California's Supreme Court on May 26 by a vote of 6-1. Last November, a barrage of deceptive and morally bankrupt advertising led to a close decision among voters to approve Prop. 8, which disallowed the rights of certain citizens to marry. Same-sex marriages, which had been legally taking place in California beginning in June 2008, were made illegal in a blatant miscarriage of justice. Now 18,000 same-sex couples are legally married, many celebrating their first anniversary on Tuesday. But thanks to Prop. 8, no one else in California may currently join them.
The lone dissenter on the court, Justice Carlos Moreno, stated that the decision by was "not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution," placing "at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."
The idea that a majority of voters can take away the civil rights of citizens is an odd and frightening one. Although perfectly legal in California, it seems to go against the grain of justice. One can construct theoretical parallels whose passage would seem impossible: How about a proposition to forbid old people to shop at Forever 21? A measure to prevent southpaws from playing professional baseball? A ban on divorce? I know these are absurd examples, but were more than 50 percent of voters to approve them, as long as they did not contradict the U. S. Constitution, they would subsequently become California law. I know that in the instance of Prop. 8, good-intentioned people believed they were invoking moral law, but even so, should belief trump the rule of law? What if members of a particular religion, for example, believed that women were second-class citizens, unworthy of rights or equality with men, and passed a proposition codifying the subjugation of women? I suppose we Californians would then have something in common with the Taliban.
A generation ago, another proposition redefined what it meant to be a Californian, and shone the national limelight on us. In 1978, Proposition 13 became law in California, turning us from a state that was first in citizen services to one that no longer wanted to pay for them. Prop. 13 labeled us as a state full of tax grinches and grumblers, the result of which has been a glaring inequity between neighbors in property taxes owed. Our current budget woes owe something to our unwillingness both to give up programs and to tax ourselves to support them.
In the same way, Prop. 8 has tainted the aura of California. For now, California's proud, prior commitment to equal rights for all citizens has been eclipsed by the states of Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine. In these states, either by legislative or judicial means, same-sex marriage is legal. I believe we will one day hang our Californian heads in shame as we try to explain Prop. 8's success to following generations, for whom same-sex marriage will likely be a non-issue. To future Californians, our excuses for why 52 percent of us voted to deny our brother and sister Californians their civil rights will seem unenlightened and pathetic, much as we now view those sorry souls who in the past opposed interracial marriage.
Certainly this issue will see another day, another campaign, another battle, another vote, another outcome. Until then, we will live with the dishonor of discrimination, California-style.
