In a victory for California's direct democracy check on government power, the California Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the backers of the constitutional amendment voted in as Proposition 8, do have standing to defend the amdendment in court. This is consistent with the court's earlier actions. The federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked California's court for an opinion on the matter, but they can ignore that opinion if they choose. The state constitutional amendment is being considered by the federal court because marriage neutering advocates claim that it violates the federal Constitution as it reserves marriage licenses for bride+groom couples. (Never mind that the people who wrote, adopted, and amended said Constitution would laugh hysterically the claim of the marriage neutering advocates, before asking a doctor to check their sanity.)
Maura Dolan reports at LATimes.com, using the usual biased language.
Maura Dolan reports at LATimes.com, using the usual biased language.
The California Supreme Court decided Thursday that the sponsors of Proposition 8 and other ballot measures are entitled to defend them in court when the state refuses to do so, a ruling likely to spur federal courts to decide the constitutionality of [defining marriage as marriage].So we can look forward to half-heart "defenses" in the future to get around this ruling?
And I wonder how much money was spent in the lobbying efforts of politicians? Defenders of marriage are always outspent in these things, sometimes by large margins.
ReplyDeleteHere is one from Maine, it notes while millions of dollars are spent, it isn't about changing people's minds on the issue but rather mobilizing voters. That may be true, but while younger populations may support it, also younger individuals are more disenfranchised and more then ever less likely to vote.
Here's the link.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/7234001.html
Also later on I have a post on not only devaluing marriage, but also civic engagement.