The Response and my further thoughts

[dhbearguy]

In response to my letter, the person who didn't vote on Prop 8 replied. (http://dhbearguy.livejournal.com/329498.html) This is an excerpt from his reply.

I do support the right of gays and even polygamists to marry.  I proudly voted against the initiative in 2000 though I had not yet realized/accepted I was gay.  However, I have always felt that marriage is an issue that belongs to the people, through their elected representatives, not the courts.  I do not feel any need for state sanction of my feelings for my partner ~ they cannot take away or diminish or augment the strength of my relationship no matter what a court or the legislature decide.  So, I have been in a quandry ~ I could not possibly vote for the initiative, but, as I discussed at length with my partner, this case will cause the most unnecessary divisiveness in our state (which it seems to have done, someone I considered a close friend is disassociating with me!)  Although I agree with the outcome (it personally benefits me) it would go against my judicial philosphy.  Do I sell myself out just because I get the benefit?  I decided just not to vote.

So my thoughts on this are....

WHAT?  Given the opportunity to vote with HIS own voice on an issues he supports... he thinks his elected representative should make the decision for him??  What if his elected representative was a uber consertivie right wing religious fanatic.  Representatives do not always make the decisions we want.  We all know that.
His Judicial philosphy is way flawed!!

 

Comments

[backawayslowly.livejournal.com]

totally disturbing.

[eireangus.livejournal.com]

Sometimes it is a scary prospect leaving things completely up to the people. Remember slavery? Eeek!

[sfbootdog.livejournal.com]

His rationale is based on a flawed view of the concept of judicial review. While Prop 22 was a reflection of the will of the voters (at the time), the will of the voters is NOT the ultimate authority (despite what a lot of people seem to think). In California (I'm going to out on a limb here and say in every state and on the federal level as well), any substantive action by the legislature (which includes ballot initiatives) must not conflict with the Constitution (both the State Constitution and the Federal Constitution, thank you very much 14th Amendment). The authority to determine whether a law conflicts with the State Constitution lies with the State Supreme Court. That is what happened with Prop 22. Someone challenged the law, it went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said that the law violated the State Constitution and should not exist. This is entirely within the proper working of the State legal system.

Judicial review of legislation has been built into the American system of governance from the outset. It is the Judicial check on Legislative power (cf. "checks and balances"). (By the way, the best way to make my blood boil is to use the phrase "Judicial Activism", which is simply a way for someone to say, "Those judges are bad people because they don't share my socio-political beliefs.")

But that's all somewhat beside the point because Proposition 8 is NOT a judicial matter! Alteration of the State Constitution is a LEGISLATIVE matter. Always has been; always will be. If you truly want to leave the running of the state to one's elected representatives, then never vote in ballot initiatives. To put it another way: Voting on Proposition 8 is the people telling the Legislature whether to change the State Constitution, which gives the Courts their marching orders. Voting on Prop 8 tells the Courts what to do, not the other way around.

Why, yes, I can be tedious, but people making decisions based on a faulty understanding of jurisprudence PISSES ME OFF!

And while I know this one goes without saying: Vote No on 8!

[dhbearguy.livejournal.com]

Well, it is too bad he already voted, and telling him this matters not to Prop 8.

But thanks for that informaiton.

[faghatesgods.livejournal.com]

oh what tedium.

I bet he didn't vote and then went and told everyone just so he could express his "intellectual independence" and prove what a deep thinker he is. He loves the attention this brings him and pitching himself as the guy who "thinks outside the box"

I recognize this kind of pathology from miles away. It's the same selfish insecure idiotic reasoning some people are using to justify their votes for Nader or the Green party candidate.

asshats. the lot of them.

[ohwolfman.livejournal.com]

it sounds like he still hasn't grasped his full understanding of queerdom. Or of 'decency' or 'humanity' for that matter.

[dodgingwndshlds.livejournal.com]

The other thing that pisses me off about arguments like these is that they are so self centered. Since when do we need to directly benefit from something in order to see the value of it? I don't have children, yet I still vote to support education.

Participation in democracy is not about reaping personal rewards, it's about creating government for the sake of the people.

To say that you can't vote for someone's right to marry just because your personal politics can't find a place to reap benefits is at best immature and at worst, Republican.