The anti-gay forces are fighting like crazy on every front in their battle against same-sex marriage. In the case of California, the current knee-jerk sound-bite is, “the will of the people.” The premise is captured perfectly in this tweet:

SaveOurNation: Can an attorney general and a governor veto the voice of the ballot box…the voice of the people [as in California’s Prop. 8 case]?

This is the perfect fear-mongering/ hate speech sound-bite. On a surface level, it seems true enough. How can two elected officials wipe away “the will of the people”? Seems unfair, doesn’t it? But that is the whole point, to frame the issue in a way that seems unfair. It paints a picture that “the people” have been wronged, and it identifies the villians. It is clear and yet vague enough, so that it can touch on any anti-government sentiment, which is an added bonus.

Here is where the sound-bit falls flat:

Will of the people

In the case of Prop 8, the initiative passed by a very narrow margin. It was a majority, but was it the will of the people? I don’t think so. If anything, the true will of the people is pretty divided , and close to evenly divided. Even the “voice of the ballot box” was a divided voice.

Veto

A veto is a specific action taken by certain elected officials. It happens with legislation sent to the governor, or the president for example. In all cases that I’m aware of, the legislature (or Congress) has a mechanism for addressing a veto. They can vote to over-ride the veto. So, a veto, in and of itself, is not the last word. In the case. In terms of Prop 8, a group of individuals who felt harmed by Prop 8 filed a lawsuit against the State of California. Now, you are free to think that the governor and the attorney general had a responsibility to appeal the Prop 8 decision, or you can believe that they had a right to not appeal it. But failing to appeal a decision, is not the same as a veto.

Attorney General and Governor

In reality, the failure of the attorney general or the governor had little to do with the ruling against Prop 8. A judge made that ruling. Even if they had appealed it, little would change in terms of where the case is at today. But here is the real beauty of this piece of hate propaganda! By attacking the “attorney general and governor” it reminds people that the attorney general (at that time) is now the governor, and it can hope to stir up anti-incumbant anger. Note there is no anti-judge sentiment expressed here, because the supporters of Prop 8 want this to keep moving through the courts, so at this moment, anger at judges isn’t desired. But just wait, if the California Supreme Court decided that the proponents do not have standing, we will see attacks on that court. Or, even if they do have standing, and the Ninth Circuit finds in favor of Judge Walker’s ruling, there will then be attacks on the Federal judges.