California voters turned once again to the polls banning gay marriage in California with Proposition 8, a Constitutional amendment that limited the legal definition of marriage between one man and one woman. The response has been an outpouring of disdain and contempt from those opposed to Proposition 8, arguing that the people who voted in favor of the measure are attempting to enact the modern equivalent of Jim Crow laws, suggesting that with the ability to gain domestic partnerships, the state has clearly made a “separate but equal” clause on homosexuals.
The primary argument has come about that the people of California are simply prejudicial, with opponents even going so far as to call the voters “bigoted”.
But was simple anti-homosexual bias the root cause of Prop 8’s victory? Based on the culture of the state and the events leading up to the proposition’s success, the facts fly in the face of the notion that the people of the state are simply discriminatory against a group that labels itself as minorities, but are rather reacting disdainfully to what can be argued as judicial abuse by the California Supreme Court.
Contrary to popular belief, the primary cause of Prop 8’s success was a vigorous voter backlash against this very body of judges, who were interpreted as overstepping their bounds as interpretors and coming down as actual legislators, something the branch of government was never intended to be.
Prior to Prop 8 arriving on the ballots, a measure was proposed before California voters that would effectively ban gay marriage in the state. The law passed, to the chagrin of homosexuals in the state who immediately promised to appeal the decision to the California judiciary. After a rigorous legal campaign, the California Supreme Court overturned the law, arguing that it violated the state Constitution. This sent an uproar throughout the state – many who had initially been on the side of gay marriage were suddenly turned against the notion if it was to be forced undemocratically on them.
Perhaps the final nail in the coffin was the arrogant press conference held by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Newsom proclaimed to a cheering audience, “The doors are wide open. It’s gonna’ happen, whether ya’ like it or not.” Therefore, compounding the fact that a democratic decision had been overturned on political grounds by judges from his city, the Mayor of what has been seen as the bastion of the homosexual culture in the state was in essence challenging those who had voted against it, using the press conference as a chance to brag with the security of the courts behind him.
Following the outcry against the statement, Newsom later went on to acknowledge that it was among his poorest public decisions in office, referring to it as his “Howard Dean moment”, conjuring images of the presidential candidate’s childish “Yeaaaaah!” proclomation to a cheering crowd that some argue may have cost him his presidential nomination.
To many California voters, with the courts overstepping their bounds and their supporters in essence “rubbing it in the face of democracy”, Proposition 8 represented not an argument of gay rights, but a topic of judicial and legislative necessity. Many who voted in favor of Prop 8 did so on the grounds that, even though they themselves supported gay marriage, did not enjoy the precedent set by a court imposing its will on the voters, allowing a group to forego the democratic process entirely.
Just as many simply wanted to, in one voter’s words, “wipe the grin off Newsom’s face”.
Prop 8, although having a core issue of what some consider gay rights, proved to be a battleground for voters to decide the basis of the California system of law and democracy. It is speculated by some that if the ballot had been put in place supporting gay marriage without the support of the courts overstepping their bounds – and certainly without Newsom’s bragadocious display of arrogance – gay marriage would’ve passed overwhelmingly in the state.
Most importantly it is vital to consider the demographics that voted in favor of the measure – where some argue that the “majority” were “imposing their will on the minority”, it was actually minority groups that overwhelmingly passed the proposition. Where whites flocked to reject Prop 8, 70% of blacks and 51% of latinos voted in favor of a ban on gay marriage.
These make the issues facing opponents of Prop 8 far more complex on both a demographic and legal standpoint than is initially considered – and the only way opponents of the gay marriage ban can hope to see its reversal is by considering the actual causes that resulted in its passing in the first place, or else they will continually see it defeated in the same way it was this November.
