Prop. 8’s passing mischaracterized
The Daily Bruin’s editorial shaming California voters for passing Prop 8 unfairly characterized both the proposition and its supporters (“Prop. 8’s victory is a loss for California,” Nov. 6).
The editorial neglected California’s history with gay marriage bans; in 2000, Californians voted to ban gay marriage. Though it said that we had soiled our identity as “policy crusaders,” no such identity existed.
The editorial also failed to mention how the short period of legalization resulted from our state’s Supreme Court overturning the 2000 ban. The decision rendered future bans unconstitutional, leaving the anti-gay marriage activists no recourse other than a constitutional amendment.
The editorial mischaracterized the ban’s supporters. Linking Obama’s landslide with liberal apathy is quite unfair, considering that the 2000 ban passed by a similar majority despite a Republican winning the presidency. In addition, Obama’s overwhelming win in our state shows that a huge number of Obama supporters oppose gay marriage.
The editorial also offensively compared the role of gay marriage and slavery in school curriculums. It said, “We still learned about slavery and prohibition, even though they were no longer the law.”
The question of gay marriage being taught in schools isn’t a question of fact, but a normative question to which California unfortunately has repeated its 2000 answer.
Jim Garritano
Fifth-year, electrical engineering
Ultra-liberal agenda in touch with reality
The right of same sex couples to adopt or marry was variously abolished or restricted in four state elections, essentially founded on the notion that the majority’s right to restrict or prohibit private lifestyle choices trumps the right of a dissenting minority to go about its business. Given this circumstance, it hardly seems to have been a triumph for those advocating an “ultra-liberal agenda.”
But in most other respects the results of the election tilted leftward to a degree that hasn’t been seen in two generations. How we got here, as Pherson asks (“Ultra-liberal agenda threatens nation, Nov. 5), is simple: The political driving force of conservatism has become utterly bankrupt intellectually. The Right lost because it has become too focused on personalities and the desperation not to be elitist. It lost because its slowing momentum during the last two months of the campaign led to desperate tactics wasted on all but the most naive. It lost because its leaders appeared to have forgotten that most Americans live in cities and work at jobs, rather than being rural entrepreneurs. The voters looked at the image held up to them by the Right, and said, “We are not that.”
James van Scoyoc
UCLA “˜84