×
Today, the California Supreme Court is hearing challenges against Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same sex marriage in California. Arguing for Prop 8 supporters is everyone's favorite sex cop, Ken Starr:
"Rights are ultimately defined by the people," said Starr, representing Protect Marriage, the group that put the constitutional amendment on the ballot. He said proponents of Prop. 8 want to "restore the traditional definition that has been in place since this state was founded."
I find these sorts of arguments to be less than compelling, if only because while yes, rights are fundamentally defined by the people, there's something incredibly tyrannical about deciding, by virtue of the immutable circumstances of a person's birth, that they're not entitled to the same rights as you are. As Julian Bond put it, Prop 8 put all Americans "at risk of discrimination by a majority show of hands."
Prop 8 challengers seem to be having a tough time:
Justice Joyce Kennard, one of the justices in the majority of the 4-3 ruling last year that legalized gay and lesbian marriages - a decision that voters overturned in approving Prop. 8 in November - said at one point that opponents of the measure would have the court choose between "two rights ... the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change the constitution as they see fit. And what I'm picking up from the oral argument in this case is this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people."Well, among the things that shouldn't be disregarded "willy-nilly" are people's fundamental rights. Prop 8 trivialized the idea of democracy and "inalienable rights" before its opponents decided to challenge it in court, simply by making them subject to a majority vote.-- A. Serwer
