This Site Has Moved
The posts found here are still available for archival purposes and to avoid broken links, but comments are now turned off and there will be no future updates. For all the latest from New America, please go to www.NewAmerica.net
About this Blog
Direct democracy -- the Switzerland-inspired system of initiatives, referenda and recalls that allows voters to make and repeal laws in 24 states -- is poorly understood. It isn’t even very direct. Direct democracy has become blockbuster democracy: a half-billion-dollar international industry of signature gatherers, consultants, and election lawyers who use ballot measures less as a method of making law and more as a tool of mega-communications to boost some politicians, hurt others, and supplement lobbying campaigns.
Blockbuster democracy is a decentralized business that practices wide-open politics. This blog aims to provide a center of news, analysis and conversation for and about the industry. We will report from blockbuster democracy’s capital -- California -- but we’ll monitor ballot measures from across the country and around the globe.
Your Blogger: Joe Mathews is an
User login
Prop 8 First Impression
I filed this item as my Fox & Hounds Daily column while watching this morning's California Supreme Court hearing on the challenges to Prop 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage:
The Folks Who Got Married Last Year Will Stay Married
That, at least, seems a safe bet after watching this morning's oral arguments in the California Supreme Court.
It was hard to tell from the court's questions whether Prop 8 itself will be overturned. But the exchange between the justices and the Ken Starr, the attorney defending Prop 8, over the question of whether the approximately 18,000 same-sex couples who married last year should have those marriages invalidated was much, much clearer.
A majority of justices -- including Carol Corrigan, who voted against last year's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage -- expressed deep skepticism at Starr's argument that such marriages must be thrown out. It felt like a smackdown, actually.
"Here's the flinty reality," Corrigan instructed Starr, explaining that the law made such unions legal at the time said, explaining that the law changed. "Aren't those couples... entitled... to rely on the law as it existed?"
Starr didn't get very far in answering that question before he was interrupted by other justices. Chief Justice Ron George, author of the original decision, even mocked Starr's argument about the meaning of Prop 8 by comparing it to President Clinton's infamous claim, "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Starr was the special prosecutor who investigated Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky case.
- Login to post comments
This "Great" nation
OK so same sex marriage is illegal. It is illegal to make a decision of union with another person because of their sex. It should then be illegal to choose a religion, or to choose a school, or even choose a home. These are all choices of an individual that has no harm on any other person. These are choices made by a person who is trying to make the best decision to further their life and find happiness. If we are already choosing for two adults who they can fall in love with and create a union with then why should we even allow any kind of choices to be made? Should we then break all marriage vows and instead vote on who should be with who? Should interracial marriages be outlawed now too because kids from this union may face identity issues later on in life or face discrimination from both the African American and Caucasian communities?
This "great" nation is taking great measure to take a step backwards against the basis of its independence. How great is a nation that sought out independence due to oppression of choices when it oppresses similar choices of its people.
I say ban christianity along with same sex marriage. Christianity has long been controversial anyways the same way same sex marriage is today. More wars have been fought because of christian crusades in history than anything else thus making it dangerous to all. Any person of christian faith should be forced to believe in something else to ensure the safety of others. Of course, this is as ridiculous and ludicrous as banning same sex marriage yet I'm sure there would be more uproar because of it since there is so many more christians than gays or lesbians.
As a married couple my spouse and I, both of whom are 100% straight, find prop 8 to be the start of a long list of prejudism against minorities yet to come. I am saddened to see all the hard work of the Civil Rights Movement come to a waste and am disgusted with California citizens for their decision in this matter. To vote is to make a choice, using this choice to take away another person's ability to make a choice because they are different is plainly and blatantly unconstitutional, morally unfair, and an abuse of that right to vote.