Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Senate approves resolution opposing Proposition 8

Gay Just days before the matter is to be taken up by California’s Supreme Court, the state Senate today approved a resolution today calling Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, an improper revision of the Constitution because it was not approved by the Legislature.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said the initiative is a fundamental revision to the document, not an amendment, and therefore required deliberation by the Legislature and a two-thirds vote of both houses to put it on the ballot.

"Do we have a constitutional democracy in California, or do we have mob rule?" Leno asked his colleagues before the 18-14 vote approved the resolution.

The issue of whether proper procedures were followed in putting the measure on the ballot is to be considered Thursday, when the state Supreme Court takes up a legal challenge to the ballot measure.

Republican senators said the resolution was an inappropriate attempt by the Legislature to influence the courts.

"Californians have spoken. They have spoken a couple of times," said Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster). "I guess I don’t see the California citizens, who I believe thoughtfully went to their voting places, as participating in mob rule."

--Patrick McGreevy

Photo: Protesters demonstrate against Proposition 8. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Comments () | Archives (77)

Byron Mullet, speaking as a gay man, if the majority had voted to take away equal rights from straight people, yes, we would refer to it as mob rule, and would be working to right the wrong. Gays and lesbians tend to be strong supporters of organizations that fight for equal protection for all people, including those we don't like (which is a big part of the huge anti-Mormon backlash in the gay community -- we've often gone to bat for their religious freedom previously).

However, the failure of Proposition 8 would in no way have negatively affected heterosexuals. Their marriages would have been intact. Churches that preach against homosexuality would have been free to continue to do so, and refuse to acknowledge my marriage. Anyone who didn't want to be gay would still be free to repress their sexual orientation, anyone who didn't want to marry a member of their own sex wouldn't have had to, any parent who wanted to opt their child out of health and family education classes in their government school could still have done so.

If you view tolerating different viewpoints as "mob rule," I respectfully suggest you should move to a country where freedom of belief is not enshrined in both the national and the state constitutions.

This is unfair. I demand that the Supreme Court put an end to the tyranny of the majority in California. I demand that the Court uphold the state's system of checks and balances. I demand that it respect the values of constitutional democracy. I demand my equal rights now!

« | 1 2 3 4


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.


Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: