More Skirmishes on Proposition 8

There have been two recent developments. The first was that Jerry Brown, the Attorney General of California, after first declaring that he would defend Proposition 8 against a court challenge by opponents has reversed his position.

Brown has now joined the chorus of voices calling for the California Supreme court to overturn the ballot initiative. The San Francisco Chronicle explains Brown’s argument as follows.

“Because the court's May ruling equated a person's right to marry with the rights to liberty and privacy, it should be recognized as an inalienable right that voters can't generally overturn, Brown said in his brief.

It would be ‘tyranny of the majority’ to allow such rights to be taken away by a simple majority vote, he said, arguing that such an action is ‘inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty in the state Constitution.’”

Predictably proponents of Proposition 8, including Kenneth Starr, ex-special prosecutor and Dean of Pepperdine University, have claimed that Brown is "profoundly wrong" and has "invented an entirely new theory."

Duh, you will excuse me, but whether you agree with it or not, the “tyranny of the majority” issue has been around since the eighteenth century and is most certainly one of the responsibilities of the court through its function of judicial review. Allow me to suggest that Starr should go back to law school.

Madison, de Tocqueville and J.S. Mills all addressed the problem of the “tyranny of the majority” in their writings. The separation of powers in the Constitution of the United States was one strategy established by the framers to hold in check a potential “tyranny of the majority”. Judicial Review, as expounded in Marbury vs. Madison, established the process under which that strategy is enforced.

The other development is that the Proposition 8 campaign has filed suit in U.S. District Court claiming that the California statues requiring the disclosure of campaign donors is unconstitutional.

The driving forces behind this suit are allegations that donors have been harassed by threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. Apparently the suit also alleges acts of vandalism, property destruction and threats to ruin the businesses where donors are employed.

This is a tad hypocritical. I mean, the Christian organizations that support Proposition 8 have been threatening boycotts against business’ that recognize gay rights for years so to that extent turn around is fair play.

As for the threats and harassment, I know the politically correct thing to say is that everyone has a right to their opinion and that right should be respected. But, seriously, why should a bigot expect to be treated politely? Sometimes you just have to punch the other guy in the nose because the dumb twit deserves it.

Let’s face it, there is a line that once you cross it you have abdicated any right to expect your body to be safe from a thorough pounding. One might argue that the supporters of Proposition 8 haven’t crossed that line. I’m not so sure about that.