Just A Thought

What I find most interesting in the debate over and protests against the passing of California's Proposition 8, which forbids same-sex marriage, is that those who oppose the law want to have their cake and eat it too.

Same-sex marriage came to California after the California Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriages were legal.

Opponents of the court decision opted to take California's proposition process to bring the decision to the voters, which they did.

With the passage of the proposition, three groups who filed suit to stop the proposition from becoming law now say (from CNN.com) "'such radical changes'" as outlawing gay marriage cannot be made by ballot initiative, but must, "'at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.'"

So, they were okay when the state supreme court -- bypassing the state legislature and legislating from the bench -- said same-sex marriage was okay, but now are upset because the majority of California voters decided that what the court decided is wrong? IN this effort, they express a logical fallacy that reveals their motivation is not listening to the will of the people -- who voted in favor of Proposition 8 -- but rather prefer throwing a legal fit until they can convince someone to get their way again.

There's also umbrage, in California and locally, against the Mormon Church for urging its members to campaign in favor of the proposition. Some point out that a significant amount of money raised by the organization opposing same-sex marriage came from Utah, not California.

Why is this a problem? It's a fair bet that a lot of the money the Barack Obama campaign used in successfully convincing voters to elect Barack Obama (whom I voted for) came from outside California, and nodoby seems to be complaining about that, at least among the liberals. Now, if Utahns had moved en masse to California, gained residency and then cast votes in favor of Proposition 8, I'd agree that there was undue influence. But because it was Californians who voted in favor of Proposition 8, I don't see that it matters where the money came from.

What this basically comes down to is a hissy fit. They did not get what they wanted. And rather than look at what they could have done better to convince California voters to vote their way, they choose instead to take the issue again to a narrower interest (the legislature) than the people and take potshots as those who backed the successful campaign (both the Caltholic and LDS churches).