On a roll
Two posts in (approximately) as many minutes. It's a glut!
Now if only I can get in the habit.
But now, to discuss this: California court urged to review gay marriage ban - Yahoo! News
I'm somewhat ambivalent on the gay marriage thing. As long as they don't try to force churches to marry gay couples against their will, I'm not sure if I really care.
What I do care about is this concept that the will of the people can be determined by a court.
In this particular case, opponents of California Proposition 8, a state-constitutional amendment that allows for marriage only between a man and a woman, now claim that voters do not have the authority to vote on such an amendment. They claim that they needed to "revise" the constitution, whatever that means.
It's an amendment passed by the voters. Of that, there is no question. Maybe if someone were to actually explain what this "revision" thing is all about, I might understand a little more about it, but as it is now it makes no sense.
Now if only I can get in the habit.
But now, to discuss this: California court urged to review gay marriage ban - Yahoo! News
I'm somewhat ambivalent on the gay marriage thing. As long as they don't try to force churches to marry gay couples against their will, I'm not sure if I really care.
What I do care about is this concept that the will of the people can be determined by a court.
In this particular case, opponents of California Proposition 8, a state-constitutional amendment that allows for marriage only between a man and a woman, now claim that voters do not have the authority to vote on such an amendment. They claim that they needed to "revise" the constitution, whatever that means.
It's an amendment passed by the voters. Of that, there is no question. Maybe if someone were to actually explain what this "revision" thing is all about, I might understand a little more about it, but as it is now it makes no sense.
posted by omahaprogrammer at
5:06 PM
2 Comments:
One of the key arguments against it is that the amendment "writes discrimination into" the state constitution - in other words, by "revision" they mean that it "guts" the constitution. The precedent of having an amendment overturned for that reason turns the Judicial Branch into the single most powerful arm of government. Leading to what I call the ultimate nightmare scenario: everyone in America is forced to become a lawyer.
I just read the section in the California constitution that discusses how to amend the constitution. The section uses the phrase "amend or revise". It doesn't specify what constitutes a revision or amendment. It does not provide for a voter initiative to revise, only amend.
This could get a little bit interesting.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home