Proposition 8: The Will of the People

A lot has been made of "The Will of the People" being overturned regarding Proposition 8 and 2000's Proposition 22.

Proposition 22 passed by 61.4% of the vote in California's 2000 presidential primary. It tried to add section 308.5 to the California Family Code. Section 308.5 was one sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Careful readers will note that it's the same sentence proposed by Proposition 8.

As you may know, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that this law was a violation of the State's Constitution. Thereby giving rise to the oft-uttered "The courts overruled the will of the people!!!"

Here's the thing. Yes; the court did overrule the will of the people. Because, sometimes, the Will of the People is wrong.

It was the "Will of the People" to keep slavery legal in the South. It was the "Will of the People" to deny women the right to vote. It was the "Will of the People" to keep Blacks "Separate but Equal" for segregation. It was the "Will of the People" to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews in Germany.

The "Will of the People" can be wrong.

To think that the so-called "Will of the People" is always right is patently ridiculous.

Supporters of Proposition 8 frequently call the Justices who overturned Proposition 22 "activist liberal judges." What they don't tell you (or just plain don't know or outright lie about) is Proposition 22 was overturned by a Supreme court consisting of 7 justices; 6 of whom were appointed by Republicans. And, I'm sure I don't need to say that the current batch of Republicans is usually against allowing Same-Sex Marriage. So, to call these justices "liberal" is hypocritical at best and patently ignorant at worst. (To be fair, I haven't bothered to find out the Justices' decisions to find out their past opinion record.)

And, is being an "activist judge" so wrong? I'm pretty sure it was an "activist judge" who ruled that Segregation was unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure it was an "activist judge" that ruled to give women the right to vote.

It appears that to be an "Activist Judge" all you have to do is make a decision that someone doesn't like. WHAMMO! You're an Activist Judge and you're EVIL! Unless, of course, you make a decision that someone agrees with; then you're a wise and learned judge.

I welcome your comments.

(I realize that comparing the rights of any two consenting adults to get married to the Holocaust is a bit extreme but that was the point. It speaks to the "Slippery Slope" arguments that are used to oppose same-sex marriage. "If we allow two women to marry each other, what's next? A man marrying his goldfish!!!????")