House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is very disappointed Proposition 8 passed, and she felt she had to defend Mayor Gavin Newsom from deserved criticism over his actions which contributed mightily to its passage.
While there are court challenges to this, I don't think there is much the opponents of 8 can do about it. Proposition 8 is part of the California constitution, and it would seem to me, thinking about the Volstead Act which began prohibition, the only way a constitutional amendment can be overruled is by another amendment. The courts can't do anything about it; they are not in the business of repealing constitutional amendments. That's what happened with the Volstead Act (the 18th Amendment); it was repealed by another constitutional amendment (the 21st Amendment). I don't know if Prop 8 could be challenged at the USSC level, but unfortunately, the USSC wouldn't touch the issue with a ten-mile pole.
Supporters of same-sex marriage in California are shit out of luck, I'm afraid, without having their own initiative repealing it put to a vote. And there's no chance whatsoever of it passing at this time.
Featured Post
The Good Die Young: James Dobson (1936-2025)
One of the leading figures of the religious right of the past fifty years, Dr. James Dobson, 89, reportedly died today. No cause of death ...
-
On a somewhat off track, Sovereignty has won the 151st Kentucky Derby for Godolphin Stable. Journalism, the favorite, came in second, whi... -
Journalism has won the 150th Preakness Stakes. It was an extremely tight far turn into homestretch. I am happy nobody was hurt, but I thin... -
Obituary: Probably the big story of today, besides it being the last day before the U.S. general election, was the death of famed music p...
2 comments:
What I find amazing is that California only requires a one-time vote with a regular majority to amend its Constitution. It seems to me that it should have to pass by the same sort of super-majority (2/3?) if there only one vote is required, or they should, as Nevada does, require a vote in two successive general elections.
That's a very good point, but of course it could cut both ways in this case.
Over at the S.F. Chronicle's comments, many who support SSM are now trashing the initiative process, which is strange because the creation of the initiative was a key plank in the progressive platform of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Post a Comment