Every so often, we California voters do something that reverberates far beyond the state's borders.
We did it in 1978 when we approved Proposition 13, a property tax limit that heralded a so-called "tax revolt" in other states and helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency.
We did it in 1994 when we passed Proposition 187, a measure aimed at ending public benefits for illegal immigrants that touched off a fierce national debate despite being invalidated by the courts.
And we did it this month when we passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to overturn the state Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage, igniting a firestorm of protest from gay rights advocates and another legal duel.
The preliminary vote tally was scarcely completed before opponents of Proposition 8 filed new petitions asking the Supreme Court to void the measure as violative of basic human rights and/or as an illegal revision of the state constitution. The constitution says the initiative process can be used only to amend the constitution while more extensive revisions must come from the Legislature or a constitutional revision convention.
On Monday, Attorney General Jerry Brown – a likely candidate for governor with a long-established pro-gay rights record – steered a careful course through Proposition 8's political minefield, describing the issue as one of "profound importance" and urging a rapid judicial decision, but also opposing the plaintiffs' request for a stay on Proposition 8's effects, and stopping short of endorsing the measure's constitutional validity.
Brown gave Proposition 8 an official ballot title and summary that the measure's sponsors believe was weighted against them and has since declared that same-sex marriages performed between the Supreme Court decision and Election Day remain valid. But as attorney general, he also has a duty to defend voter-approved measures in court, even those he opposes.
Gay rights groups clearly hope the Supreme Court will take an opportunity to issue another decision that tilts their way, but to do so, Chief Justice Ron George and his colleagues would have to make quite a legal stretch, and if they did so, they'd be accused a second time of substituting their personal philosophies for the will of voters. Their first decision earlier this year overturned a statutory ballot measure that only marriages between men and women would be recognized, even as gay marriage opponents were offering it to voters again as a constitutional amendment.
The situation is somewhat reminiscent of what happened a quarter-century ago when a state Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Rose Bird routinely overturned death verdicts in murder cases even though voters had strongly voted for capital punishment. Bird and two other justices were later ousted by voters.
No matter which way the court rules on Proposition 8, it will add fuel to an already raging fire.
Call The Bee's Dan Walters, (916) 321-1195. Back columns, www.sacbee.com/walters.
