First the problem with gay marriage, apparently, was that it was being imposed by unelected judges. (Never mind the fact that the judges in Massachusetts were appointed by an elected official.) It should be decided by an elected body, the legislature, gay-marriage opponents said. Now California’s legislature has approved gay marriage, and what do opponents say? That the legislature “subverted the will of the people.”
What does Schwarzenegger say? That it should be decided by court decision. Or by a vote of the people. Talk about passing the buck.
In 2000, Californians passed Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, with 62 percent of the vote. It’s been working its way through the courts. According to the Times, “several Republicans… said Democrats who represented districts where voters approved Proposition 22 had no moral authority to subvert that vote.” One Republican assemblyman said, “History will record that you betrayed your constituents, and their moral and ethical values.”
Interesting question: should the legislature have taken Prop 22 into account?
This raises the question of the role of a legislator. As a legislator, you’re supposed to keep your constituents’ wishes in mind. But if that was the only role of a legislator, there would be no need for legislatures. A legislator is also supposed to have an eye toward the public good.
But this raises the question of what the public good is. Is the public good what “the people” think it is, or what the legislatures think it is? Is it the collective private desires of the people, or is it something outside the realm of, and greater than, private interest? As for the 62 percent of Californians that passed Prop 22, were they voting out of private interest or out of their sense of the public good? We do have a conceit that legislators have a greater sense of the public good than “the people” do, since the people supposedly focus only on their private interests.
Anyway, this will all be moot if, as expected, Schwarzenegger vetoes the bill. Schwarzenegger is a democratically-elected governor and is as much a part of the democratic process as the legislature. That’s why it’s lame of him to pass the buck.
I think those Pacific-style propositions are bad. As much as we don’t like to admit it, legislators’ jobs are based on their ability to balance competing interests, but voter propositions allow voters to change things in a vacuum. Of course voters want lower property taxes, for example, but do they understand that their schools will suffer if they starve their local governments? It’s a penny-wise and pound-foolish way of governing.
It’s the old argument of Jeffersonian Democracy versus Jacksonian Democrary. Do we put decision making power into the hands of a better-educated, better-informed elite, or simply leave it up to the masses. I tend to think that, just because there is a majority and a minority on any given subject, that doesn’t mean that the minority gets their rights stomped on or that the majority should automatically have its way.
Of course, in the gay marriage debate the ironic thing is that if the minority were to be granted the full rights and responsibilities that we seek, it doesn’t affect the majority at all.
I like the idea that my legislators know more about any given issue than I do. They should. It’s their job. If I disagree with his or her opinion enough, I will vote for someone else to represent me in the legislature when Election Day comes around.
While the idea of government by and for the masses is certainly an ideal, it has never worked because, as a rule, the masses are un- or undereducated and/or do not have all the facts at their disposal in any given matter.
We have a sterling example of this in our nation right now. I think the perception of Americans in general around the world right now is that individually we’re fine, but that collectively we’re stupid, prudish bullies who won’t stop until we get our way, no matter the cost.
Democracy is not simply majority rule; safeguarding the rights of minorities was a paramount concern of the founders. Civil rights advances in America have never been at the whim of the majority…if they had been, women and blacks would still not be voting and public life would still be segregated.
Furthermore, of course the legislature voted for gay marriage. There’s not one valid reason for not doing so.