His story is revisionist -- California's legislative history was visionary

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/10/2012

by Jeremy Hooper

In a piece where he attempts to paint the California Supreme Court as "activist" and the primary reason behind the cruel ballot initiative known as Prop 8, Focus on the Family Judicial Analyst Bruce Hausknecht includes this little snip about California and its legislative history:

It is true that the people of California have, over the years via its legislature, passed laws creating and expanding domestic partnerships, which over time have evolved into a civil union-type “marriage-in-all-but-name” legal relationship. However, the people of California have never, I repeat never, granted the title of “marriage” to same sex couples as Reinhardt’s narrative insinuates. [SOURCE]

First off: It's somewhat shocking to hear a "pro-family" guy even saying that the people speak through the legislature. Over the past few years, with public voting on minority rights being all the rage in socially conservative circles, we hear this key idea of legislative representation pushed to the "values voter" back burner. This is even true when they are themselves pushing an anti-gay amendment through at state leg., with the "let the people vote" crowd still positioning the subsequent public referendum as the one, true "will of the people" action. So just in terms of process, it's actually kind of nice to hear Bruce acknowledging that the legislature reps the people. Sincerely.

But that out of the way: There is one crucial item missing from Bruce's history lesson. Two items, in fact. And I'm of course referring to the TWO TIMES that the California state legislature PASSED A MARRIAGE BILL. Remember that? Back in both 2005 and 2007, the California Senate and Assembly garnered healthy margins and passed a bill to grant equality to the people. Twice they did this. The only reason why they, the representatives of the people, weren't able to bring said fairness to the Golden State either time is because then-Governor Arnold Schwarzengger vetoed the bills.

And why did Schwarzenegger, who is now a supporter, choose to veto the bills? Well, because he said "that the appropriate resolution to this issue is to allow
the Court to rule on Proposition 22," the prior ban on marriage. Once the court did rule, that is when Gov. Schwarzenegger also changed.

So on this, Bruce can't have it both ways. If the people of California spoke via the legislature on matters pertaining to domestic partnerships, then the people also spoke the two times the lawmakers passed a marriage bill. And considering the main, if not only, reason that the bill was killed was the very case that Bruce says is to blame for Prop 8, then it's not the court that overruled the people in this instance -- it was the lack of court action that did! The court allowed the people and its legislature to be heard! The court did its job.

space