Even before all ballots had been counted and certified, homosexuals filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to invalidate the people’s will and votes in Proposition 8.
The argument is that Proposition 8 revises the California Constitution, instead of amending it, and thus is invalid because initiative’s voted by the people can only amend – and not revise – the constitution.
Confused about the difference between a revision and an amendment? Join the club.
Basically, as argued by the petition, a revision is a change to fundamental beliefs of the people – longstanding values. An amendment merely enlarges or restricts rights.
Something as important as a revision to the constitution requires a legislative process to change the constitution, not merely a majority vote of the people via initiative.
Ironically, and incredibly, the petition fails to recognize, or maybe intentionally avoids noting, that the fundamental belief and will of the people has been that marriage is between a man and a woman.
It’s not even a Californian belief. Call it a human belief that transverses cultures, religions, political systems, and eons of time.
The “change” to this fundamental will of the people was the recent one-vote majority of the California Supreme Court.
Talk about a temporal majority that ebbs and flows depending on who is on the court!
If this petition is followed to its logical conclusion, the California Supreme Court should fully and vigorously enforce Proposition 8. It does not revise the fundamental, long-held beliefs of the people. The people have always believed marriage is between a man and a woman, and the people previously voted for another initiative explicitly setting that into law.
The only “revision” is to a couple month old judicial opinion, rushed before the election, based on the slimmest of slim 1 votes. It came down to one person, one judge, to override the will of the people.
Of course, these same judges will be deciding this petition. If a judge wants a certain outcome they can always find to justify it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the court, unhappy about their black-robed decision being overruled by the people, to stick it back to the people and to invalidate the vote. After all, I don’t believe the court had to decide its gay marriage case before the election (the court sits on many cases for a long, long time), but rather made sure everything was done to have gay marriage be in place before the election. I could be wrong, but judges are accustomed to getting their way unless they are told they are wrong by a higher court, but there is no higher court in this situation.
Hold on to your hats. The culture wars could explode in California and throughout the nation.