Posted by
Bert Chapman on Saturday, February 06, 2010 10:22:14 AM
During the Progressive era in the early decades of the 20th century, reformers of varying political stripes sought to enhance the quality of governmental policymaking and citizens ability to influence this policymaking through the electoral process.
One example of this was the citizen's ballot or referendum initiative enacted in California. In the century since this was enacted into California law several, hundred citizen initiatives have been placed onto California state ballots for the Golden State's electorate to determine whether these measures should be passed to repeal existing laws or recommend new laws to that state's legislature. These initiatives have covered a variety of topics including economics, education, immigration, and other policy issues.
1978 saw the passage of conservative inspired Proposition 8 which was intended to reduce increasingly onerous property tax rates and other citizen ballot initiatives have produced results favorable and unfavorable to conservative political and governmental aspirations. A succinct summary of the origins of these Progressive era reforms can be found in Kevin Starr, Inventing the Dream: California Through the Progressive Era, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 235-282.) The political careers of many figures were launched as a result of California's Progressive Era including Hiram Johnson (1866-1945) who was California's Governor from 1911-1917 and later served as U.S. Senator.
A more recent demonstration of this positive reformist instinct has been Proposition 8 which passed during the November 2008 elections. This resolution sought to reaffirm traditional California state law that marriage is only between a man and a woman. In passing this resolution (on the same day that it decisively elected Barack Obama to the presidency), California voters joined electors in more than thirty states and in global cultures of various religious perspectives in reaffirming their commitment to traditional marriage. Unfortunately, we live in a very litigious society and proponents of same-sex marriage have become increasingly vociferous in trying to impose their moral and political agenda on society making concerted use of the judicial system to coercively enact their beliefs.
Litigant Kristin Perry has filed suit against Proposition 8's constitutionality and the case is being heard in a San Francisco federal district court. Many constitutional law experts believe this case will eventually be referred to the U.S. Supreme Court which will have to issue a ruling on whether same-sex "marriage" is constitutional. Perry and her allies arrogantly believe they can use the court system to impose public policy and legal rulings on our polity which have been repeatedly rejected by American voters when these voters are given the chance to express their views on this issue. If Proposition 8 or any other electorally approved issue stance is rejected by rampaging judicial activists at the urgings of litigious malcontents such as Kristin Perry, we might as well shred our constitutional electoral rights and call ourself a litigious judicial dictatorship. Do we still want to consider ourselves a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or a government of judicial tyranny bankrolled and manipulated by affluent litigants who seek to impose their lifestyle practices on our communities, cities, and nation?