2008 Woodie Awards
King Newsom usurps power
Gavin Newsom swipes power to allow gay marriages, that may be a political gambit gone wrong
Neill Herbert
Date created: 3/24/04 Section: OPINION
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Years ago, the people living in this great land of ours decided enough was enough, so they overthrew the current government and started their own. What would possess a people to do this? For our founding fathers, an authority figure's disregard for the will of the people was enough incentive to start a revolution.
Fast-forward about 230 years. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and its provisions for a healthy democratic government are firmly established. The people are exercising their rights and their ability to shape their own government for better or for worse. Leaders are recalled. Laws are passed. Democracy is in action.
And then all of a sudden, an elected official ignores the will of the people.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom seems to be taking a stab at going down in history as one who changed democracy. It is quite possible that democracy may overthrow him instead.
Contrary to Newsom's wishes, on March 11, the California Supreme Court ordered that same-sex marriages in San Francisco be immediately halted.
Our current system has been proven over and over again. The people speak, the law is established, and the leaders comply. By ordering same-sex marriages to be recognized by the state of California, Newsom has been much less than compliant.
The issue of same-sex marriage may be at the forefront of media coverage these days, but that is only the issue showing on the surface of a much larger iceberg that may be bound to sink this great vessel we know as democracy.
Passed by a significant majority of the people in this state in 2000, Proposition 22 is now part of California law. Its language, unlike much legislation, is not ambiguous in any way nor is it difficult to understand. In fact, Proposition 22 may have been the simplest, most explicit proposition ever printed on a California ballot. The supreme law of the state of California states explicitly that marriage is solely between a man and a woman.
Newsom, however, justifies his actions by using an unspecific clause of California's constitution. He has said that he is merely upholding the law of the land by interpreting an ambiguous portion of it. Does he realize that he is directly disobeying the plain statement of the law that reflects the will of the majority? Does he realize this is a slap in the face of the Constitution, the very document that outlines for us the role of law and its ruling power?
Fast-forward about 230 years. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and its provisions for a healthy democratic government are firmly established. The people are exercising their rights and their ability to shape their own government for better or for worse. Leaders are recalled. Laws are passed. Democracy is in action.
And then all of a sudden, an elected official ignores the will of the people.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom seems to be taking a stab at going down in history as one who changed democracy. It is quite possible that democracy may overthrow him instead.
Contrary to Newsom's wishes, on March 11, the California Supreme Court ordered that same-sex marriages in San Francisco be immediately halted.
Our current system has been proven over and over again. The people speak, the law is established, and the leaders comply. By ordering same-sex marriages to be recognized by the state of California, Newsom has been much less than compliant.
The issue of same-sex marriage may be at the forefront of media coverage these days, but that is only the issue showing on the surface of a much larger iceberg that may be bound to sink this great vessel we know as democracy.
Passed by a significant majority of the people in this state in 2000, Proposition 22 is now part of California law. Its language, unlike much legislation, is not ambiguous in any way nor is it difficult to understand. In fact, Proposition 22 may have been the simplest, most explicit proposition ever printed on a California ballot. The supreme law of the state of California states explicitly that marriage is solely between a man and a woman.
Newsom, however, justifies his actions by using an unspecific clause of California's constitution. He has said that he is merely upholding the law of the land by interpreting an ambiguous portion of it. Does he realize that he is directly disobeying the plain statement of the law that reflects the will of the majority? Does he realize this is a slap in the face of the Constitution, the very document that outlines for us the role of law and its ruling power?
