California State Attorney General Jerry Brown is engaging in the same shenanigans with ballot initiative language that Missouri’s Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan was with initiative language that would ban affirmative action.
Here’s the language that voters were asked to consider during the signature-gathering process that ultimately qualified the initiative as Proposition 8 on the November ballot: "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
And here’s, after Moonbeam’s word-smithing, what the voters will be asked to consider: Prop. 8 seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
That’s a huge difference and political analysts believe that “inherently argumentative” and yes, divisive language will make Prop. 8 difficult to pass.
Have we mentioned Moonbeam is considering running for governor in 2010?
"Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, denied that there was any political motivation for the move.
Instead, he said, the change was necessary because of the dramatic turn of events that have taken place since the petitions were circulated: namely that the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and thousands of gay couples have since wed."
This is absolute nonsense, of course, as the ballot drive did not begin in anger until after the Court’s decision.
All this frustrates us to no end and yes…. it does create an admittedly unwanted backlash against the gay movement within our hearts. We have gay friends and co-workers and this animus is not directed at them but rather the mechanations behind these efforts that swear up and down there is no politics involved, there is no agenda when, in plain sight, a clear-headed assessment of unfolding developments betray them.
There was a time when we could’ve been sweet-talked into some form of Amnesty for illegal immigrants and there was also a time when we were only mildly-opposed to gay marriage. However, after seeing how the rule of law was being flouted, the will of the people ignored, “rights” being fashioned out of thin air and the haughty and high-handed nature of political overreach in both cases… we’d had it. Enough is enough! Both the Amnesty crowd and the pro-gay marriage folks lost any sympathy let alone support by jerking around the voters and not being honest with the public.
If these ends cannot be achieved by legitimite means then we are forced to question the legitimacy of the ends, themselves.
Story here.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Jerry Brown takes a rather dim view of your ballot language.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
In other words, you can't stand the idea that the voters will be honestly told what prop. 8 will do, so you oppose language that accurately describes prop. 8.
Barry, thanks for stopping by.
What is the logic or reasoning behind changing the language?
The voters were asked to consider a very straight-forward proposition regarding the definition of marriage being that between a man and a woman.
And now that language is being changed to that which is more purposefully confrontational and one that shifts the rules of engagement.
I freely admit I have a narrow view of the definition of marriage. That is my perogative.
But now, the language has transformed from that by which I am asked to accept or reject a definition of marriage to that which I am being asked to confirm or eliminate a "right" which I believe never existed in the first place. That's a world of difference.
I'm a California guy through and through. As such, I appreciate the quirks and somewhat libertine nature of my home state even if it goes against some of my political leanings. And that is precisely why I ask... nay, I demand to be dealt with in a straight-up manner.
If Prop. 22 showed up on the ballot all over again and got shot down, then, fine. No worries. The people were asked a straight-forward question and gave a straight-forward response. Gay marriage prevails.
I do not, however, like being jerked around by obviously agenda-driven politics. And this language change is precisely that.
Again, thanks for stopping by and commenting.
P.S. Please follow my link to the Missouri situation. Its the same shape-shifting politics being attempted there.
Dean,
The language is being changed to be more accurate.
There is a substantive difference between taking an existing legal right away, and preventing a not-currently-existing right from being recognized by the state. The fact that there are voters who'd vote for the latter, but not for the former, shows that this is a difference that matters to voters.
What prop. 8 will do, if passed, is take an existing legal right away. To not indicate that plainly in the language of the proposition would be lying to the voters.
"But now, the language has transformed from that by which I am asked to accept or reject a definition of marriage to that which I am being asked to confirm or eliminate a "right" which I believe never existed in the first place."
The California Supreme Court made a ruling that same-sex marriages are legally recognized by the state of California. Whether or not you think they made the correct decision, or what you personally believe about marriage, isn't relevant.
What's relevant is that same-sex couples in California now have a legally recognized right to marry. (They don't have a right for you to see their marriages as legitimate). Prop. 8 would take that right away.
The new language states the truth, plain and clear, and the voters will understand what it means. No one will be bamboozled by the new language, because what it says is the truth. Why are you against that?
It says a lot that proposition 8's supporters don't want the voters to see a plain statement of what proposition 8 does.
BD, I’m not as opposed to gay marriage as you may want to believe. What I am opposed to is how we got to where we are, currently, and what I am seeing in plain sight as purely politically-driven actions.
The California State Supreme Court found some sort of “right” to “form a family union” in the Constitution and applied this heretofore non-existent right to allow for same-sex marriage. Does this same “right” allow for me to marry my brother, my sister… my dog? Where is the distinction if I choose my wombat for my “family union”?
County offices opening early and staying open late to accommodate licensing and ceremonies. This is preferential treatment and smacks of an agenda.
County workers being told they must perform ceremonies even if it violates their religious principles. This is discriminatory behavior and reveals an agenda.
The very words of Moonbeam’s spokesperson saying the language change was necessary because of the Supreme Court’s decision is a blatant lie. There was no petition drive begun in earnest until after the decision was rendered…. No petition drive was needed… Prop. 22 was standing law. Agenda. Agenda. Agenda….
The irony here is that opinion polls have shown that Prop. 22 may very well have been rejected had it been on the ballot in November with language nearly identical to 8. Had that happened, I would not have liked it but, hey…. that’s life in the big city, kid. The public spoke and we all part as friends.
I resent, though, not being dealt with in an honest fashion. And what I see as overreach and obfuscation within the legal and bureaucratic process has really pissed me off.
With all due respect, Dean, your response is a bunch of red herrings. The salient issue is, which wording would most accurately convey to the voters the effects of proposition 8?
My argument is:
1) Language which accurately informs voters of what they're voting on is superior and more democratic than language which does not.
2) Stating that proposition 8 will take an existing, legally recognized right away from some people is accurate; omitting this point is inaccurate.
3) Therefore, the new wording for proposition 8 is better than the previous wording.
Nothing you have said refutes my argument in any way at all.
BD, I’m not really sure what is “red herring” about maintaining the same language from the ballot petition to the ballot, itself.
And I can make a counter-argument that you have not refuted my argument that there is a large degree of politically-motivated shenanigans and agenda when the seperate points I make are viewed collectively and which has really chapped my hide above and beyond the question of gay marriage, itself.
But no matter… perhaps the reason I haven’t persuaded you is because we are simply coming out of different starting blocks. I’m assuming you believe there is a “right” to same-sex marriage and given the logic employed by the state Supreme Court, I would hope there is consistency in your own logic and also believe there is a “right” for me to marry my sister… and my Dad, also.
I, however, don’t believe there is a “right” to same-sex marriage just as I don’t believe there is a “right” to health care, affordable housing, a job or even a “living wage” or many other “rights” that are, these days, made of pixie dust.
So our views of what language is to be used on the ballot and the acceptability, thereof, is going to be biased by our beliefs, and that’s OK. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
"And I can make a counter-argument that you have not refuted my argument that there is a large degree of politically-motivated shenanigans and agenda..."
Why would I deny that point? I agree with it. Changing laws is inherently a political process. On this Earth, legal change is always political and messy. Always.
The only thing I'd disagree with you on is if you think that politics is one-sided, and that the people who agree with you are pure-hearted saints who never, ever try to use the political system to achieve their preferred ends. But I assume that's not what you're claiming.
I guess I just don't think it matters. Yes, the process is political, and yes, political actors are always acting in imperfect and compromised ways. So what?
That doesn't change my argument at all, which is that in a good democratic system, proposition language that more accurately describes the effect of a proposition is to be preferred to that which less accurately describes it. In order for a vote to be honest, the voters need to be accurately informed.
The only at all cogent response you've made is that propositions as voted on should be identically worded to what was signed in the petition. But as far as I know, that's not the established law in California or any other state with propositions (or ballot measures, etc..). Every single state that has direct voter law-making, also has procedures by which the Secretary of State (or another elected official) has the ability to change the language describing the proposition to make sure it accurately conveys the meaning of the proposed law to the voters.
If you think about it, such a procedure is necessary. The large majority of people who sign petitions are not lawyers, and aren't taking much time for researching exactly what they're signing. Without oversight, what prevents proposition writers from lying about the effects of their proposed law, in the description that voters will read?
(Note that the exact wording of the law that people signed petitions for has NOT been changed. All that's been changed the description of what proposition 8 does -- and that's been changed to make it more honest. Why are you against that?)
The Secretary of State, of course, isn't a dictator. His decisions can be overturned by a judge, if the judge is persuaded by the proponents of prop. 8 that his changes aren't justifiable and don't accurately describe the proposed law. And the judges and the Secretary of State, in turn, all eventually face elections of one sort or another themselves.
That the secretary of state has oversight, and in this case stepped in and made the description of proposition 8 more accurate, is not a bad thing. It's exactly how the process is designed to work. And the result, in this case, is a more honest vote. I don't have to think that the secretary of state is a pure-hearted person with no political motivations at all, to recognize that a more honestly described proposition is a good thing.
Oh... I forgot my favorite one... the marriage certificate now says "Spouse A" and "Spouse B" instead of "Husband" and "Wife". Charmed, I'm sure. For a state that prints up every single piece of paper generated in every single language under the sun to not give heteros the option of filling out their marriage license on the old form is... highly irregular?
When does it stop being just "politics as usual" as you contend and start becoming a pile of steaming doo-doo?
Yes, I am aware that the AG can change the language on the ballot and also be subsequently sued for it.
So we have making up rights out of thin air, discriminating against heterosexual couples by denying them a traditional marriage licensce form, purposefully misleading comments out of the AG's office, forcing county employees to perform ceremonies against their wishes.... sorry, BD - the whole thing stinks.
But you never answered my question: Should I be allowed now to marry my sister?
Great thread guys...
Sorry I came in late (been away from my computer for a few days...).
Dean, I like your question. But don't look too closely. That slippery slope you are correctly identifying (and BD has thus far ignored) is under your feet. We are past the point of no return.
Various groups are pushing for (and practicing) polygamy (and HBO has a series glamorizing this). There is a woman in court in France trying to get a chimp declared a person (at which point a human might try to marry this or equivalent non-homo sapiens sapiens person). Finally, there is a woman in France that just married the Eiffel Tower.
Clearly the "definition" of marriage is twisted, bent, folded, and spindled beyond the simple (1 Man)+(1 Woman) that we were all raised on. Like or not, it is done. Argue the language of the proposition all you want. It makes no difference.
The question is, what is the long term consequences of these changes? Are they good or bad (on balance)?
No one knows. And yet we begin another social experiment from which we will never retreat. Good, bad, or otherwise.
Dean, you weave and dodge like Jackie Chan. Could you answer this question for me please, yes or no:
In your opinion, is presenting voters with an accurate description of the effects of a proposition, better than presenting them with a less accurate description?
Yes or no?
Why do you refuse to answer this simple question? If you want voters to be presented with the less accurate information, at least have the guts to say so.
* * *
Regarding Garth Lacy's statement, I think you're being more misleading than he is. The proponents of Proposition 8 made their official request for a title and summary in October of 2007 (pdf link) -- many months before the California Supreme Court's decision.
Lacy is absolutely correct to say that the original summary language was written before the Court's decision. And he's also right to say that the summary language should be changed to reflect the Court's decision.
* * *
I notice that people who have weak, anti-democratic positions that they can't defend -- people like you, in other words -- usually try to change the subject. Hence, rather than addressing the actual issue here -- the right of the voters to have the effects of proposition 8 presented as accurately as possible -- you keep on dragging in irrelevant nonsense.
I'm willing to address the irrelevant nonsense you're bringing up (incest, marriage certificates, etc) but not until you forthrightly address the actual topic. To repeat:
In your opinion, is presenting voters with an accurate description of the effects of proposition 8, better than presenting them with a less accurate description?
Yes or no?
BD, You'll have to excuse me but my heart isn't into continuing this debate at the moment (though, answering your hopelessly skewed question will be fun, I assure you).
I've been (temporarily) shut down by Google as I have been identified as a potential Spam Blog. (Go to top of web page and first comment for some more details).
Yes, comment function still works but I cannot post articles.
In all seriousness, good faith and brotherhood, I want to thank you for stopping by and engaging in the debate. It means a lot.
Dean
Sorry for your blogger problems, of course. I appreciate the debate. Peace.
Post a Comment