It ain't over. They're going to have the constitutional amendment declared
unconstitutional. The arguments are 1) this amendment is significant enough
a change to the constitution that it requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature,
or a full constitutional convention, not a mere simple majority
(notwithstanding that a mere four votes were enough to change the meaning of
the constitution in the other direction), and 2) it violates the equal
protection clause in the same state consitution.
Me: Our attorneys are optimistic about this point.
They'll also try the 9th Circus on Federal constitutional grounds. And
Moonbeam is also advancing the argument that, despite the plain language of
the amendment, it has no effect on the people already "married" under it,
because it doesn't explicitly state that it is retroactive. It doesn't
matter that the words plainly imply retroactivity, it doesn't use the word
Me: I'm not too worried about the retroactive point. A large (but unknown) percentage of th 18,000 same sex couples who got CA marrige licenses were from out of state, and of no legal significance to us. (They might be a nuisance in their home states, which was their point, but that is, strictly speaking, someone else's problem.)
And past experience indicates that the divorce rate of gay couples is quite high. Most them won't be married after 5 years in any case.
Keep your eye on the big picture here.
There is no point at which these people will stop. They will use any
mendacious argument, any dishonorable tactic, any illegitimate exercise of
raw judicial power. And they will do so until they get their way.
Me: That does appear to be the case, doesn't it? It is an interesting question as to why that should be. I hope to write about that someday. when my in-box empties! (Just kidding. Keep writing! We love hearing from you!)