Attorney General to Nullify Constitutional Amendment

Californians from both camps will rally to the cry of protecting marriage rights, but when the man issuing the call has the power to redefine “marriage” at his will, no legal action on the people’s part can ensure their protection. It is in the name of protecting marriage rights that California Attorney General Jerry Brown pushes for the repeal of the latest constitutional amendment, which defines marriage to be between man and woman.

Brown’s rationale that our current legal definition of marriage encroaches upon marriage rights can be true only if he is permitted to redefine words whenever he pleases—a practice former President Clinton raised to a high art in his peculiar use of the word “is.” If we sanction this exercise of doublespeak, then a marriage law applies just as correctly to congress with a dog in the park as to a member of the opposite sex—provided that the dog be consenting and of age. Whether that age be considered in dog years or human years must vary from court to court, however, because under Jerry Brown’s philosophy, words do not have meanings in legal settings.

Today’s paper quotes Brown to say that he now finds the latest amendment at variance with the declaration of basic freedoms in Article I of the Constitution: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Does this constitute legal grounds for him to exercise his will in affairs of marriage? The fact is that marriage is mentioned in only two places in Article I: in the context of property ownership …and in the Prop. 8 amendment. There is no legal ground to impute Prop. 8 with violation of the Constitution.

Equality of rights has been called into question, nevermind that from a legal standpoint, homosexuals have and always will have equal marriage rights with heterosexuals: to wit, any man may marry a woman, and any woman may marry a man. Say it’s not fair, a person cannot choose the object of his or her attraction? If I am a pedophile, bestialist, polygamist, or practicer of incest will you make legal recognition of the morality of my union?

A secret ballot? Not in the information age. Voters face reprisal.

The case of Scott Eckern, erstwhile artistic director of California Musical Theatre, is hardly breaking news; here’s a swift recap. Eckern came under fire following the election because of his support for Prop 8, the California initiative to legally define marriage in the terms it has traditionally held. He resigned Wednesday. While people are permitted to cast their ballot in a narrow stall with blinders or via mail from the comfort of their homes, protection of their privacy extends no further than this.

The data of donors and the sizes of their contributions is available, and for Prop 8, it is more available than for most elections: the local paper mentions three websites that have posted the names (and in some cases businesses) of contributors to the Prop 8 campaign.

The demographics of the voters are, likewise, no secret to newspaper readers. Election reports show the black community, for instance, overwhelmingly voting yes on Prop 8. And why should this ethnic group vote otherwise? The no-on-Prop 8 campaign argued strongly that the legal definition of marriage is a violation of their civil rights—are black Americans (or anyone else) to equate the horrific civil rights violations which Dr. King battled in the previous century with this year’s question of broadening the definition of marriage?

Holly Jacobson of Elk Grove writes to the opinion page, expressing her wish as a black Californian not to be associated with the yes-on-Prop-8 voters, due to the backlash of anger and persecution that has hit the state since the election results. Protests continue to be held (not campaigns for the next election but protests against the due process that has already taken place). Voters are not ashamed of their stances, but they do not wish to invite vindictiveness from their ideological opponents. Some California professionals had their spouses donate for them in order to avoid retribution for their companies. Churches and temples have been vandalized. And of course, individuals have been persecuted, which returns us to the matter of Scott Eckern:

The theatre industry is known for homosexual-tolerance (a misnomer: “tolerance” is defined as bearing up under something unpleasant or harmful; the theatre industry is homosexual-bolstering, the country at large is homosexual-tolerant). In the California theatre crowd, many Prop 8 opponents are outraged, some feel betrayed by Eckern’s fiduciary support to the Prop 8 campaign. Hairspray-composer Marc Shaiman has been very vocal on the affair and urged fellow members of the community to boycott California Musical Theatre. He says: “[I] come to find out, I helped put money in his pocket that helped get this proposition passed.” This writer would call Mr. Shaiman’s attention to the fact that statistics indicate he has also put money into the pockets of countless pro-Prop 8 local merchants, from the gas station attendant to the restaurant owner. Shaiman understands what Eckern’s dismissal would advertise against the anti-Prop-8 camp, but he declared that he would not permit his material to be performed in any of CMT’s venues so long as Eckern was in position. CMT is, according to its website, "the largest nonprofit musical theatre in California" and entertains 300,000 patrons a year.

Shaiman’s position is heartfelt and expressed diplomatically, but his actions and those of cooperators amount to persecution; and the only point of view which permits them to escape that label is looking the other way—a perilous point of view, taken too often in these times.

A few more details:

Early this week, Eckern issued an apology for making his donation to the Prop 8 campaign and promised to donate equally as much money to support equal rights for homo- and bisexuals. The tragedy now becomes that not only did his job suffer, but he sold out and recanted whatever principle inspired his alignment with Prop 8. Bad move, guy.

Eckern states that he left CMT in order to prevent it being damaged by the opposition inflicted upon him. CMT wishes to make clear that the company in nowise pressured Eckern to tender his resignation.

The matter at hand is a question of upholding the rule of law, not a discussion of gay-vs.-straight ideology. However, an expression of the Prop 8 ideology is relevant: “There’s nothing about supporting traditional marriage which is anti-gay,” one of the campaign managers said in a telephone interview.

Information relayed in this column is drawn from the past several days’ issues of the Sacramento Bee.

If you would like to contact Governor Schwarzenegger with even a few words voicing your support or opposition to the turmoil which still rages over this matter, the following link leads to an easy email form:

http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email