Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Why I don't h8 today's ruling

Don't get me wrong. I don't like it, and I'm disappointed. I would have like to see it overturned on the arguments already made.

Still, it pops the lid off a can of worms created by Prop 8. It's a very narrow judgement, and there's only one question it really answers.

On the up-side, it maintains our position of strength (sadly entirely disregarded by the "No on 8" coalition and campaign) in working to re-ammend the constitution. We have roughly 18,000 married same-sex families living their lives, working, paying taxes, raising children. We are not destroying the fabric of society in California, we're strengthening it. We are not devaluing California's spiritual life, we're celebrating it. That's what the campaign has to be about, not mealy-mouthed inoffensive unchallenging pap.

There's also the bureaucratic and business madness of supporting three different marriage and marriage-like classes of service. The RNC wants to complain that same-sex marriage will be a financial burden on small business? It's nothing compared to the burden that this balkanized judgement will place on business and government. This will have to be addressed.

Finally, there's the meat of the amendment, "a man and a woman." Wait for a spate of lawsuits to prevent or dissolve marriages since November where "man" or "woman" is debatable. Savvy divorce lawyers are going to go wild with the non-existent legal definition.

The imp of the perverse sees chaos, confusion and unintended consequences coming out of this, ideally enough that the silent center will want to repeal the amendment in disgust.


May. 27th, 2009 05:30 am (UTC)
Yes, but it's a principle of constitution-making that you shouldn't be able to change your basic governing document too easily. On a tiny scale, that's why it takes two years at two widely separated locations to amend the WSFS constitution; otherwise, a transitory hot-button issue capable of riling up a group of people one time only could get a change rammed through.

I rather suspect that the people who backed Prop 8 will now become among the biggest proponents of constitutional reform cloaked in getting rid of the legislative 2/3 requirement for passing a budget (which I hope we can manage someday soon because it's strangling the state) while including something intended to make future changes much harder. And they need to move quickly in order to get it done before a Prop 8 repeal gets enough support to pass under the same conditions as currently apply.

Latest Month

February 2014
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Paulina Bozek