If you actively support taking away someone’s right to marry, then you absolutely do NOT get to claim some sort of moral high ground or express surprise when the community you’ve attacked decides they want to hit back.
The Mormons had the audacity to issue a statement with these paragraphs:
While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.
Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.
Really? That’s the angle you’re taking? “Hey, it’s just politics, and it’s inappropriate to retaliate?” No, I don’t think so. Turns out, politics works both ways, and you shouldn’t be surprised that there are consequences to enacting hateful legislation.
What’s really amazing to me is this story. Precis: Mormon musical theater director in California ends up having to resign — surprise! — because it turns out that he donated $1,000 to Prop 8. Dude, WTF? And his sister’s even a lesbian. From his statement, quoted in the linked article:
“I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal,” Mr. Eckern said. “It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction.”
Either this man is an incredibly brazen liar, or he has no empathy whatsoever. Prop 8 was not some abstract piece of legislation; prior to its passage, gay couples could legally marry. After, they cannot. To suggest that he “honestly had no idea” that the people around him affected by it would be feel angry and betrayed by his material support of the measure is simply absurd.
Also, good luck finding theater work now, Mr Eckern. Your donation was a matter of public record already, but now you’ve been on record in the New York Times as a homophobic bigot.
This whole thing depresses me – it was a black stain on an otherwise euphoric election night here in California. I’m interested in the legal challenges that are forthcoming (equal protection, etc.). Maybe there’s still hope.
I’m wondering how a legal challenge would go down. I think one way may be that in order to amend the constitution, you would have to go through the legislative process, not just a popular vote. We’ll see what they come up with. I honestly don’t know how they’d challenge the legality of it without getting into federal equal protection issues.
My understanding is that the CA Constitution can be amended by popular vote (as here), and that would suggest that there’s no state-level way to rectify this short of another amendment. Doesn’t that leave a Federal equal protection suit as pretty much the only angle? Surely a state Constitution cannot trump the Federal one.
State level constitution will not trump the federal constitution UNLESS the state level constitution provides more protection than does the federal one.
For example, the federal constitution wouldn’t limit a state constitution’s protection of gay marriage, even if the federal constitution is held not to protect that.
The question will be whether the SCOTUS will include sexual orientation as a protected class (such as race, religion, disability, etc.). As far as I know, he SCOTUS has not so-held.
Frank’s right: It’s basically the difference between an amendment and a revision. Previous CA Supreme Court rulings identified same sex couples as having equal protection, so if they determine that Prop 8 is a substantial revision, not an amendment, a simple majority wouldn’t suffice (it would need to go to the legislature).
Kos has a good description here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/13/135554/18/561/660483