CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 8
(…don’t the IX and X Amendments mean anything anymore?)

Some years ago the voters of California adopted a system for placing – Measures- and –Propositions –  on the ballot as a means of bypassing Legislature obstructionism for laws the voters wanted enacted.

The process, however, was not an easy one, and deliberately designed to impose a form of political –triage- to prevent casual stampedes for or against single-issue causes du jour. For any measure or proposition to even be qualified to appear on the ballot, the proponents of it had to collect a minimum number of signatures from registered voters just to get it on the ballot. In the process that generated a lot of pro-con debate about their merits and the issue involved. Yet many such efforts made over the years have ended up –stillborn- never making it to the ballot, and, even after qualifying to be on the ballot, many failed to win enough support to be adopted. In short, the process allows “the People” to engage in direct political action on any issue. It’s as “democratic” and as constitutionally correct a process as can be had.

Such are the origins of Proposition 8. It went through that process, qualified to be on the ballot, was voted upon by the voters of California, and approved by a majority, a narrow majority at that time, but still a majority, which opposed the idea of same-sex marriage. Apparently, while the voters were willing to allow other forms of acceptance for gays and lesbians, marriage, was not one they could accept.

Unfortunately the opponents of Proposition 8 were not willing to accept the voters’ decision on this issue, and chose to nullify it by filing a lawsuit claiming such a decision was – unconstitutional – to force it through the judicial system instead, where it has now landed into the laps of the Supreme Court. Apparently the opponents of this proposition only believe in the provisions of the Constitution when these suit their agenda or purpose.

Incredibly the arguments we’re hearing before the Supreme Court, both for and against this proposition, are all off base…because they completely ignore the provisions of both the IX and X Amendments in this situation. It has nothing to do with gay rights or equality. It is all about whether voters –The People – have a right to decide an issue through the democratic process or not. Here’s what each of these Amendments have to say about it:

IX – “the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others               retained by the people.”

X  – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited

by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

On the basis of these two Amendments, how can the constitutional validity of Proposition 8 be in question?

The voters of California exercised their rights under those provisions, and their opposition to same-sex marriage in their State should stand as it is…until other developments might change that position. Simply put judicial action is not the way to go. Instead, those who wish to see it overturned should follow the same process as those who put Proposition 8 forward in the first place. If the climate of public opinion on the issue has shifted sufficiently since that proposition was put on the ballot, then its opponents should have no difficulty getting the necessary signatures to place their own – Proposition – in favor of same-sex marriage on the ballot, and obtain a sufficient majority of voters to vote for it, settling the matter once and for all, here in California.

Let us not also forget that, if California did that, besides adding to the number of states that recognize same-sex marriage, others would be sure to follow over time, and ultimately enough of a national consensus could be reached to obtain Federal legislation for it. That would be the rational and constitutionally correct way to resolve such a contentious issue. We can but hope the Supreme Court will come to the same conclusion. If not, then both the IX and X Amendments will have been voided, and we will have placed ourselves on a very slippery slope leading to the further erosion of the authority and validity of our Constitution.

That is something none of us should wish for.

CENTURION