California’s gay marriage drama took a new twist Friday. Pro-gay activists filed a legal brief to block a proposed amendment banning gay marriage. The activists insist that the amendment counts as a “revision” of the constitution, which requires legislative – not electoral – action. The Supreme Court will rule on the petition later this summer. [LA Times]
Serial…
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
emb
Utterly BRILLIANT move.
There actually appears to be sound legal basis for this: since the Cal Supremes have interpreted the CA Constitution to include the right of homos to marry, limiting that right would per se be a revision or amendment of the Constitution, which can only be done legislatively.
For a prescient analysis, read this: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/inmyopinion052108.htm
fredo777
Agreed, EMB. That’s exactly what I was going to say (give or take a few words).
Since they’ve opened that can of worms, it’d be hard to go back on their ruling if activists wish to use it to their advantage.
reversion
Took long enough for this…
JPinWeHo
This is fantastic news! Let’s hope it gets some traction.
Jaroslaw
In Michigan, our constitution can be amended by ballot initiative, and it was, sadly, to ban SSM and anything approximating a marriage or something like that.
Now, this may seem like a brilliant move to some, if indeed it is correct that California’s Constitution cannot be amended with a ballot. What I’m afraid of is appearing to “thwart the will of the people” by using shrewd political gamesmanship. Yes, the other side does it, I know but these people are a lot more motivated than our side. I hope the fallout does not motivate more people to become interested in “saving the family” and “saving traditional values.”
Jaroslaw
and they have ton more money than us too.
emb
Jaroslaw, while I agree with your ideals, sometimes we just have to stop playing nice, quit taking the moral high ground, and just get dirty with the other players. If the christian right could get their way through some snappy legal footwork, you know they’d be all about it, will of the people or not.
Jaroslaw
EMB – I never suggested we “play nice” as many of my other posts indicate- I just don’t want to give the other side any ammunition. Of course, you may be right – for people who don’t read or try to analyze, anything can be mischaracterized. So down and dirty may be the way to go.