Again, and again, and again

Don't worry, I'll soon grow tired of commenting on our recent election and I'll try not to do two in a row. My comments today will concern California Propositions 4 and 8, two of the more emotionally charged propositions. Proposition 4 lost while Proposition 8 won. If you don't live in California, you'll probably want to skip this entry.

Prop 4 would have mandated parental notification before a teenage girl could have an abortion. And this is not the first time we've seen this proposition. In fact, the headline in the Sacramento Bee recently read "Prop 4 backers begin preparations for a 4th try". The law governing our initiatives does not prohibit reruns and the emotions and righteous indignation which is behind Prop 4 does not permit giving up. There is simply too much at stake. So we can expect this one to reappear on our ballots every couple of years. Of course, should it ever pass, there will immediately be challenges in court and a possible overturning of the measure and the whole thing starts again.

Prop 8 eliminates the right of same sex couples to get married in the state of California. This is also not the first time we saw essentially the same measure. It did pass as Prop 22 8 years ago and, as predicted, was immediately challenged, and eventually overturned in court. Was anyone surprised that within 24 hours, several lawsuits were submitted challenging Prop 8? Some see this as a slap in the face of the electorate. I see it as people doing their jobs. Constitutions are not really wordy documents. They're intended to be broad in scope because the makers of a constitution can't possibly predict all the cases that need to be covered. So it's up to the courts to work out the details and fill in the cracks. And if it turns out that one part of our constitution says "A is true" and another part says "A is not true", then the courts have to decide which it is. And a law can change the interpretation of some part of the constitution so that there exist contradictions where non existed before the new law. Of course an amendment to the constitution can also introduce contradictions. Either way we rely on our judges to catch and correct such inconsistencies. It is their job. But they need cases to work out such details and that's where the attorneys come in. It is their job to find and pursue cases that will require resolution of the constitutional ambiguities.

So, can we expect the same fights over and over on the Prop 4 and Prop 8 subjects? Yes, until one side becomes so weak in influence that it doesn't stand a chance. Look at the numbers. Prop 22 was easily passed 8 years ago with 60% to 40% while Prop 8 passed 52% to 48%. It doesn't take a mathematician to see that 8 years from now the equivalent Proposition might possibly lose 44% to 56%. Voter exit polls show that there is a direct correlation between voter age and approval of Prop 8, the younger voters being overwhelmingly against it.

Slowly, but surely, America is becoming diversified and is accepting diversification. For example, many Americans over 40 don't think they know of any gays, especially happy, well-adjusted gays and certainly not gay couples in committed, healthy relationships. Hardly any American under 40 doesn't know several gays and gay couples. In fact, I was somewhat surprised that the No on 8 campaign didn't show the humanity of gays and gay couples. I think it would have made a difference.

So whichever side you are on, don't assume the battle is over. I'd like to leave you with a message I saw on the bumper of the car ahead of me this morning:

"When do we get to vote on your marriage?"