The kindling to my little fire today is the analysis in the San Francisco Chronicle. The gist of that surmise from people in the courtroom is that the justices will uphold the ballot vote, but validate the 18,000-plus same-sex marriages conducted before the vote.
Listening to the arguments and questions, they concluded that keeping the amendment may suck, be cruel and unfair, and need legislative attention as well as another vote, but it's the way they play the game out there. As the article lets the court head put it:
"There have been initiatives that have taken away rights from minorities by majority vote" and have been upheld by the courts, said Chief Justice Ronald George. "Isn't that the system we have to live with?"It's pretty certain that if this comes to a vote again and the public thinks about what it real means and says about them, they'll more than erase that 2% majority that passed it. Yet, that would be in judicial time, not today or next week.
Afternoon Follow-Up: The LATimes' piece on this reads that marriage-equality supporters have all but given up winning this challenge to Prop 8. They seem to be looking ahead to getting the question back on the ballot, although the first opportunity, 2010, may be too close to organize. Two of the 4 to 3 majority that legalized SSM there initially seemed to support the amendment vote. The high could promises a ruling with 90 day.
Tags: massmarrier, same-sex marriage, California, Prop 8
1 comment:
"We should all wait but I can't."
Hey I resemble that remark! I realized after the oral arguments yesterday that if I was ever in doubt, I need doubt no longer that I am not good zen material. Doris Day used up all the Que sera sera and didn't leave any of the sentiment for me.
Post a Comment