The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 today. While I disagree with the proposition in general, I agree with the decision to uphold the outcome of the vote. I would think that if Proposition 8 had initially failed, the Supreme Court would have still upheld the decision, and I still would have agreed with the court.
Putting this issue on the ballot was always a gamble; one side was always going to win, and the other was always going to lose. That’s a risk both sides took when this issue was offered on the ballot (as a constitutional amendment), and not as a bill in the legislature.
For me, the bottom line is that this was the people’s decision, whether through a referendum or through legislation, and they chose to use a referendum. Someone was always going to lose, and while I may not agree with the outcome, it’s what the majority of Californians evidently wanted.
I hope that the opponents of Prop 8 will look at why they lost and what they can do in the future to appeal to people who initially voted for it. Not engaging in vandalism would be a good idea, first of all. I also think they should look at states like Vermont, who recently passed a gay marriage bill that included a shield for religion. I completely understand wanting to keep religion out of politics, but why should churches be forced to recognize something they disagree with? If you’re going to keep religion out of the government, you should keep the government out of religion as much as possible.
I have a feeling that if a reversal of Prop 8 is placed on the ballot, it will pass, especially if it’s in a relatively quiet election year. But as I mentioned on Twitter, I am amazed that people are so quick to ignore states in “Flyover Country,” yet those are the ones who have passed laws allowing gay marriage. If nothing else, hopefully this will serve as a reminder not to stereotype people who live in other states, regions, etc. as narrow-minded bigots, or ignorant, etc.