The subject of this paper is a rebuttal to an article that focused on Proposition 8 that was introduced to the state of California in 2008. This paper will argue against the statements that the author said and give insight into how the author’s statements were misleading. First Statement “Now, two years later, though a federal court has declared Proposition 8 invalid under the U. S. Constitution, it nonetheless remains in effect. This state of affairs persists even though most people now support equal marriage rights…” (Brill, 2011).
Brill is making a misleading comment here by saying that most of the country is in support of equal marriage rights. By stating that most of country now supports equal marriage rights is a bit of an exaggeration. According to the Pew Research Center, Americans for the majority are still opposed to same sex marriages by the tune of 46% against it (Pew Research Center, 2011). The results from the poll also showed that there was 9% that voted “do not know” and they were counted in with those that were for same sex marriage (Pew Research Center, 2011). Second Statement “The initiative proponents, however, have appealed.
Now the California Supreme Court must decide whether unelected and unaccountable initiative proponents have the power to trump the judgment of the democratically elected attorney general” (Baume, 2011). This statement by the author is a way of classifying or assuming that all the people that supported Proposition 8 are rebels and do not like to adhere to the law. What Baume does not tell you is that 52% of the California voters voted in favor of the clause “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” and that portion is now in the state constitution (Pew Research Center, 2011).
A federal judge later ruled that the amendment to the state’s constitution was unconstitutional, then that decision was appealed (Yoshino, 2009). This appealed case known as Perry v. Brown has not been decided by the appellate court (Yoshino, 2009). With the wide spread controversy over Proposition 8, the decision will more than likely end up being ruled by the U. S. Supreme Court rather than from the attorney general. Third Statement That the scope of the fundamental right to marry may be resolved by such procedural niceties has some benefits: First, such a decision will essentially end this damaging fight and restore the right of same-sex couples to marry. Secondly, the risky strategy of placing the important question of equal marriage rights prematurely before a conservative U. S. Supreme Court will be gone. Finally, declining to expand the power of initiative proponents may help contain the dysfunctional fiscal and political effects that the initiative system has caused the state as a whole” (Brill, 2011).
Brill is basically making a huge assumption that supporters of Proposition 8 are basically ready to give up or give in and accept the repeal for the amendment. The author is not taking into consideration Proposition 8 supporters’ passion and will which would not compromise their values. In this article, the author wanted readers to repeal the amendment however the article was filled with information that was invalid and false. This article was completely biased and should be read keeping that information in mind.
Baume, M. 2011, May 26) Obstacles Remain For A Prop 8 Repeal. Retrieved from http://www. greenlining. org/news/in-the-news/2011/obstacles-remain-for-a-prop-8-repeal Brill, L. (2011, May, 26) It’s Time For Prop. 8 Opponents To Re-Engage. Retrieved from http://srticles. ocregister. com/2011-05-26/news/29591989_1_marriage-rights-initiative-basic-rights Pew Research Center. (2011). Most Say Homosexuality Should Be Accepted By Society. Retrieved from http://people-press. org/2011/05/13/most-say-homosexuality-should-be-accepted-by-society:/