Proposition 8 passed in California. Same-sex marriage, briefly legal since a court decision in May, will be no more.
No, I'm not saying that we will all agree about gay marriage, but...
I find two things disturbing here. One is what Californians actually voted for. I'm in favor of same-sex marriage. But set that aside; it's a topic for a whole 'nother post. There's something else here that ought to disturb people who disagree with me about marriage: in the State of California, the constitution can be amended by a bare majority.
If you believe in the idea of a constitution at all, that's bad. Constitutions provide the framework for ordinary law-making. A constitution that can be changed by a bare majority won't have the stability we want from a constitution. That's why amending the US Constitution isn't easy: we don't want the basic framework of our laws to shift with the political winds. Putting it the other way around, if you think that all law -- including the framework principles -- should be easily changed, then you should think that Constitutions are a bad idea in the first place. (You might also think that a lot of other things that ensure stability in the legal system are bad.)
So disagree with me if you will on the issue. Some other time, I'll say more about marriage itself. But amending a constitution by a bare majority? Bad news, left, right and center.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Unfortunately the phenomena isn't limited to California. We have the same system here in Missouri, and passed three major constitutional amendments this election cycle. We also go a step further and say that a simple majority can kick an appellate judge off the bench--antithetical to the notion of a non-political judiciary.
Hi Tim,
Yipes!
Actually, in my homeland (Canada), judges aren't elected. They're appointed and the custom always was that once they're on the bench, they no longer vote. The thought was that judges should be seen as above the political fray. I remember how odd the idea of elected judges seemed when I moved here in 1979.
Actually...it appears that there is at least an argument to be made that the constitutional ammendment was a substantial revision and now must go to the legislature for ratification.
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=6292
Post a Comment