Could be. Or not.
Now: 15.7 million voters, you say. 4.6 mil voted for prop 22, you say. The rest of California must have been pretty apathetic about prop 22 or clearly, it couldn’t have passed.
One could make a similar argument against racially integrating schools in the South. The majority of the population was strongly against ending segregation, and it took some “activist” judicial intervention to stop it. It took years afterwards for the tide of popular opinion to turn in favor of civil rights for blacks.
Dosen’t really get to the point though because African American civil rights leaders were actively trying to get legislation passed in congress at the time. Starting in 1945 a civil rights bill was introduced to congress every year until 1964. Every year it was voted on and yes many were defeated but over the years different acts were passed by congress:
1945, 1947, 1949 - poll tax repeal (passed by the house)
1954 - Brown vs. BOE (court decision)
1957 - voting rights act (passed by congress)
1960 - civil rights act (passed by congress)
1964 - civil rights act (passed by congress)
To say that Brown vs. BOE is what secured civil rights for African Americans is just not the case. Following your logic it goes that the court decision is what changed the minds of Americans so that they would eventually accept equal rights for African Americans. It could easily be said that the court decision caused resentment towards African Americans in the south.
Would the civil rights acts of the 50’s and 60’s have passed without Brown vs. BOE? I certainly think so – and it would have been better to have had waited for congress to abolish segregation with written law. Then it could be shown that it was the will of the people and not of a few judges.
You can start to make a comparison with the civil rights movement on this issue as soon as gay activists start to try to get legislation passed in their favor as fervently as did African Americans.
And finally you actually make my point in your comment. The court decision did not bring about acceptance for the civil rights movement. The hard work of the civil rights activists in educating the public brought about the change in the hearts of Americans – who in turn changed their laws to reflect thier new positions on the issues. The court case did not bring about this change. If the Supreme Court decides that gay marriage is ok then most Americans will resent the decision – not accept it. Eventually it would take an act of congress (written law stating that gay marriage is ok) to lay to rest the resentment and prove that it was the will of the people.
Has Roe vs. Wade brought acceptance for abortion? No - after 31 years a majority of Americans still oppose unlimited abortion. And those who do oppose it resent the decision as going against the will of the people. And until a real federal law defining abortion is passed in congress most Americans will feel cheated by the court.
sorry for the long post -
first, RE “gay TV”…
CRAB PEOPLE! CRAB PEOPLE!
Now to the point of the OP- part of it is the old “blue states/red states”, “coastal cultural elites/flyover country” dichotomy. Most Americans don’t want to harass or bother gays but also don’t want to be told they have to accept/approve gayness. If gay political activists played their cards right, most states would probably OK civil unions within a couple of years- insisting on marriage, especially by judicial fiat rather than legislative action makes the fight longer, harder & more acrimonious (I couldn’t figure out a way to include “uncut” L). Bush himself does not oppose civil unions (which a truly reactonary, homophobic person would.)
Want the sense of most of middle America? I think Dennis Prager’s essays have put it best.
I don’t think that’s following the logic. As with the Civil Rights movement, the law led the way to acceptance; acceptance did not lead the law. If African Americans waited around until the majority of Americans were in favor of giving them their rights, they’d still be waiting. If a law is unconstitutional and is struck down in the courts, it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter what John Q. Public thinks about it at that moment; he’s shown that he’ll come around. I’d say that about Brown v. BOE, Roe v. Wade, and whatever Supreme Court judgement overturns the laws against gay marriage.
But you know what? As I said before, people should not have to wait until every American gets his head out of the sand and embraces progressive thought. No, activism is just that–active, and if going through the courts gets the laws to reflect the Constitution, then I really don’t see why it’s “better” to wait for legislators to get up the nerve to do it. Constitutionality is more important than popularity.
People resented the hell out of Brown v. BOE at the time. Too freakin’ bad. The law is the law, and that’s why Supreme Court Justices don’t have to face re-election. That is why it so often falls to the courts to overturn bad laws and level the playing field. Popular resentment for gay marriage should no impact on how jurists decide, and if they care more about the Constitution than pleasing the tyrannical masses (who I frankly don’t think give as much of a damn as you imagine).
First of all, what is “unlimited abortion”? Of course most people oppose third trimester abortions, but I think the majority of Americans think abortion should be available to those who have a need for it. I will find a cite if you want one. Second, I disagree that most Americans feel Roe v. Wade goes against the will of the people. Everything I’ve read has said that women who have been raped, have health issues, know the fetus will be defective, or are too young to raise a child should have access to abortion. Without cites, I cannot accept your thesis here that people feel cheated by Roe v. Wade.
The Constitution set up checks and balances to protect the SCOTUS from the vagaries of public opinion, among other things. As a result, I think gay rights activitist are taking exactly the right tack on this issue. If they know that there’s little chance of legislation being passed by cowardly public officials facing re-election, why not go the route of challenging the law in court? It’s a perfectly valid way to get the rights to which they are entitled and of which they are being deprived by a bigoted majority. What’s right is more important than what’s popular, and if circumventing the electorate is what’s necessary to get people their Constitutionally guaranteed rights, I say, by any means necessary.l
That bumbling pustule does indeed oppose civil unions in practice — he’s supporting the Musgrove amendment, which would bar civil unions outright (and tear apart all the civil unions currently in existence). There is no end to the depth of the man’s hatred of gay people.