If you fail at the ballot box, sue

The PE reports here that

"Even before the last votes were counted Wednesday on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, gay-rights groups and a married lesbian couple were turning to the courts to overturn the measure. "

As readers know, the people in 2000 approved another proposition which created a law that marriage shall only be between a man and woman. When the state Legislature created civil unions with all the same rights and privileges as marriage, the state supreme court found that this violated gay citizen's rights of equal protection. The people as is there right then sought to amend the state constitution to re-implement the law. It passed. The plaintiffs in the above action will surely once again try to get from the courts what they can't get from the people.

Local Riverside resident Jill Johnson-Young is quoted:

"Jill Johnson-Young, who in September married her partner of 21 years, Linda Johnson-Young, at a Riverside church, said she was angry that same-sex marriage opponents were trying to void her marriage."

"It makes me sick," she said. "We wish our marriage and family can be left alone. My marriage has never affected them, and for them to try to take this away from me and force Jerry Brown to spend tax money on this -- the level of hatred they have is unbelievable."

It can't possibly be that supporters of Prop 8 really believe in their hearts that society has an interest in seeing that children are raised by a husband and wife. No, it has to be hatred.

This article also has another quote from Karthick Ramakrishnan, an assistant professor of political science at UC Riverside who is also sited previously on this weblog.

The good professor is quoted:

"many people who voted for Obama and Prop. 8 were social conservatives who typically vote Republican but voted Democratic this time because economic concerns trumped beliefs on social issues."

This doesn't quite square with the demographics of the state or the failure of proposition 4. Prop 4 would have required parental notification for abortions. A similar proposition was also defeated several years back. It received approximately 46% of the vote. This proposition was widely supported by social conservatives. There can't be many more social conservatives than that. So how does Professor Ramakrishnan account for the additional 6 percent who voted for proposition 8? Could it have been that a majority of people have closely held views that that society has an interest in seeing that children are raised by a husband and wife.

The author of this article does what many attorneys do in trials: Get an expert to state the point they want made. Whereas attorneys are advocates and need to make their point, why is a journalist trying to make a point? Just report the news!