David Hart finds this interesting quotation from Ken Starr, the man who held the nation hostage with his obsession with Bill Clinton's sex live:
"What is being argued before the California Supreme Court is: Do the people have power under the California constitution to amend the constitution so as to overturn a specific decision of the California Supreme Court? It's a very important but nonetheless different issue than the underlying constitutional issue of the right to marry someone of the same sex,"
It's a piece of propaganda that doesn't really have much relationship to what went down with Proposition 8 in California last year. Prop 8 was going to happen (signatures were gathered by April) well before the California supreme court decided in favor of marrying same-sex couples (the court decided in May).
If anything, the impetus behind putting together Prop 8 was the fact that the state legislature passed legislation to marry same-sex couples twice, only to have each law fail because of a veto from the governor. I'm sure they could see the writing on the wall as well as anyone else could - the moment the Democrats took back the governor's office in California, same-sex marriage was going to pass the legislature again and it would be signed into law.
But Ken Starr is anything but an idiot. And he's not so unfamiliar with California politics that he wouldn't know the actual timeline. Instead, he's spreading the same lie about Prop 8 that George Will was just a month ago, and I'm sure many people that I'm not following are: that it was a direct response to the court's decision.
Over these last few days, seeing the Republicans all over the teevee talking about how the Democrats want to take your money to spend on their pet projects and that man in Tennessee who shot up a liberal Universalist church, I'm wondering if the right-wing runs on anything but resentment. And here the story isn't much different - Ken Starr and various right-wing factions in California need a boogey-man, and the democratically-elect state legislature doesn't make for that good of one. So they pull the "activist judges" bullshit off the shelf and try to repackage it for this one.
In that way, this isn't about people trying to pass a mean-spirited constitutional amendment, this is a righteous fight against the unelected elites who want to tell you how to live. And Ken Starr knows that it's easier to get people riled up in his favor if the enemy isn't the same-sex couple that wants to marry or the legislature who passes a law to make that happen, but is instead a bunch of eggheads who think they know more than you about how to raise your children who didn't even have the decency to run a campaign and get elected.
David points out that the lawsuit isn't saying that no amendment process can go through at all. Of course, what's the point of riling up the army if you can't exaggerate a few facts?
I especially like the implication, though, that his fight in this lawsuit has nothing to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with the underlying process argument. It reminds me a lot of those folks who said that calling for Sam Adams to resign was all about his lying and not about the sex, or those who said the same thing about Clinton.
Speaking of which, wasn't Ken Starr one of those people? It's funny how people who think that someone should lose their job because of what they do in the bedroom turn out to not really be all that supportive of gay rights.