Misguided Prop. 8 approach

Re “Prop. 8 foes puzzled by jurist’s seeming reversal,” Nov. 25

The argument to overturn Proposition 8 because it is a constitutional revision rather than an amendment is weak. Justice Joyce L. Kennard’s vote to not hear the case should serve as a wake-up call that the strategy is misguided.

Marriage equality supporters should not play the numbers game. Discrimination is wrong even if 90% of voters were to vote to prevent a group the right to marry because they choose to be Mormon or Muslim, or because they are infertile or “too old.”

A better strategy is to ask the courts to determine whether voters have the right to deprive any group of a civil right, or whether civil rights are beyond the reach of the ballot box. A ruling by the California Supreme Court on this issue would set a precedent. It is difficult to imagine that the court would choose to make the state vulnerable to majority-sanctioned discrimination in the future.

Proposition 8 limits the right to marry. Is this the beginning or the end of ballot-box discrimination?

Rick Kemp

San Francisco