I love hyperbole; in fact I think that hyperbole is about the most fantastic device that could possibly be used by a writer. Naturally I say this rather sardonically, though hyperbole can carry a scary and sobering punch.
The power of citizens to vote on referenda is central to democracy; this I’m not challenging. I am, however, challenging the legality of what makes a legitimate referendum.
The fight against California Proposition 8 is a fight for true pluralistic democracy. The irony in the Perry v Schwarzenegger, the case now before the Supreme Court of California, is that California has largely excused itself from defending Proposition 8, whose defense is now in the hands of its official supporters.
But it is the substance of this case that will be groundbreaking in what it could accomplish for democracy. Already within the first few days of the trial, the institutionalized marginalization and discrimination against gays in this country has begun to be examined.
To claim that money is at the core of the raging court battles over the legality of Proposition 8 is preposterous. The amount of money leverages by anti-gay activists is just as vast as those for same-sex rights; in fact, in Arizona the ratio was disproportionately in favor of the anti-gay activists.
In fact, because of the vast amount of funds generated by the pro-Proposition 8 campaign, its supporters were able to disseminate a message that was somewhere between biased and outright hyperbolic.
Dr. Hak-Shing Tam, a leading Proposition 8 proponent, claimed that should the measure fail, gays would then seek to “legalize having sex with children.” The claim seems to quickly knock the wind out of the sails of the defendants.
The same old arguments — that children need a mother and a father, that sexual orientation is not biological, that marriage is a never-changing institution — are defunct.
A May 20, 2004 article in Slate, “Prenuptial Jitters: Did gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia?” provides a wealth of evidence that gay marriage, in the nations in which it has been legal longest, has not affected the institution of marriage.
In a Nov. 8, 2009 New York Times article, “The Way We Live Now,” Abbie E. Goldberg said in reference to children raised by same-sex couples, “there are some who will continue to believe that gay parents are a danger to their children, in spite of a growing web of psychological and sociological evidence to the contrary.”
Marriage is a fundamental right and denying that right to same-sex couples, as Proposition 8 has now done in California, seems to spit right in the face of minority rights and continue the cycle of institutionalized discrimination against gays — but then again, the tyranny of the majority nearly always does.
Reach Max at mfeldhak@asu.edu
