Advertisement

Letters: Lessons of the Prop. 8 fight

Share

Re “Gay marriage wins,” June 27

The saga of Proposition 8 is the ultimate example of what’s wrong with California’s referendum system.

Public opinion on gay marriage has been steadily shifting toward approval, and in 2008, Californians were pretty evenly divided on the subject. But Proposition 8 passed narrowly and became part of the California Constitution.

Advertisement

In other words, a major civil rights question was decided almost by the flip of a coin.

Compare this with the huge hurdles to be overcome in amending the U.S. Constitution. The difficulty in passing federal amendments prevents the majority from changing the Constitution to discriminate against minorities, which is what Proposition 8 did in California.

With the help of federal courts, we finally got the right outcome. But it shouldn’t have taken so much time or trouble.

James Kilgore

Long Beach

The ugly side of the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 is that it gives veto power to any attorney general or governor who on his own accord decides he doesn’t want to fulfill his duty to defend the laws of California.

When the voice of the people doesn’t count, it should concern all Californians — gays and straights, liberals and conservatives.

Advertisement

Bruce Alvord

La Crescenta

The Times went too far by declaring on its front page that “gay marriage wins.” It may have in the Defense of Marriage Act case, but not so for Proposition 8.

The court did not void or validate anything with regard to Proposition 8. It did not even review the case. It simply found that there was no appellant. Thus, the matter was resolved on a purely procedural ground, leaving a window for future decisions on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.

Wednesday’s dismissal of the Proposition 8 case is a historic moment that does not have to be distorted from the very beginning.

Vladimir Bogorad

Advertisement

Chatsworth

ALSO:

Mailbag: Coliseum deal a Trojan horse?

Letters: No one spoke up for sex abuse victims

Letters: ‘Rational arguments for discrimination do not exist’

Advertisement