Image from source, Planet Out
Well of course. As Cleavon Little said in Blazing Saddles, "Can't you see this is the last act of a desperate man?" A constitutional amendment is what you shoot for when you have no other options left. Can't change a law? Change the constitution, and you can make all sorts of crazy laws (thank you, The Simpsons).
Full disclosure: The Other Half and I intend to tie the knot in California at the end of the month. Whatever the electorate decides, we'll be legally married in the state of California--for at least a couple of months. Sure, we live in Nevada, where we have our own constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but we're gonna do it anyway.
My gut instinct when voting for Nevada constitutional amendments is to vote "no." Particularly when the act is to deny rather than permit something. I implore California voters to think long and hard before casting a "yes" vote. Should civil rights issues be open to popular vote? Would interracial or interfaith marriages have been permitted if everyone got to vote on it? I think not. The tyranny of the majority against the minority was--at least I've always believed it to be so--a major no-no to the founding fathers. Put your prejudices aside and ask yourself, if some religion objected to your marriage--for whatever reason--would you think that a valid reason to nullify your union? Because--don't kid yourself--this all boils down to religion, and religion should not be codified into law.
Gay marriage ban qualifies for California ballot
An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters. . .
Read more at: Planet Out