I guess I don;t understand this... I thought this changed the California constitution. Wouldn’t it have to be undone through another amendment?
yup undo what the people want.....and change the rules to run a third term (bloomberg)
Their aruguing in wasn’t an amendment but an addition to lanquage in the constitution, which they say needs a 2/3 from the Calif. legislature. But the Ca. Supreme Court has had the question of amendment vs. language before them in the past, and have always ruled to uphold the vote.
Yes you are right. This is a constitutional amendment, not just a regular law. So the courts don’t have the authority to overturn it.
The activists are going back to court with a long shot legal argument that this amendment is in conflict with the rest of the Calif. constitution, and the parts of the constitution used by the judges to justify same-sex marriage. It’s a long shot, but since our laws are now made by political correctness, not by the rule of law, anything is possible when this gets back in the courtroom.
One would think... but that never stops 'em from trying.
Here are some excerpts from the interview:
Arnold: I think it is unfortunate, obviously. But it is not the end. I think this will go back into the courts, this will go back into the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court, very clearly, in California has declared this unconstitutional. It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry--this falls in the same category. So, I think that we will, again, maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.Q: As a Governor, from a policy perspective, are those couples who were married--same sex couples who were already married in California--are they in jeopardy in any way?
Arnold: No, not at all. No. It's just from now on, you know, there is no marriage between a man and a woman (sic). Until again, like I said, until the Supreme Court turns it over or does anything about that.