The game’s afoot!
The California secretary of state confirmed yesterday that proponents of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage have collected enough signatures for the measure to appear on the ballot this November, removing any doubt about whether or not California voters will be able to weigh in on the state Supreme Court’s recent ruling permitting same-sex marriage in the state.
Proponents of the measure needed to submit more than 1.1 million signatures to qualify for the ballot and the California secretary of state certified that a sufficient number of the gathered signatures were valid.
If voters approve the amendment, it would place in legal jeopardy any same-sex marriage licenses obtained in California after June 17, when California is slated to being issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. (Washington Blade)
Whether you agreed with the ruling by the California Supremes or not, the People will definitely have their say on same-sex marriage now. Whether the amendment wins or loses it’s in their hands to decide this issue for probably a generation. It is premature forcing a fight on this now in my estimation but it is upon us now and despite the perilous wisdom of all this: cry havoc, O Noble Harry, and loose the hounds. It almost feels like the Chinese curse has come alive and that we do indeed live in interesting times.
UPDATE (6/4/08): The California Supremes refuse to stay their ruling until after the November ballot. Look for a number of same-sex couples to marry in California now and the legal challenges to explode afterwards.
– John (Average Gay Joe)
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The one thing I envy California about is the ease in which the people can get something on the ballot. Here in Democrat-controlled corrupt Illinois, it’s impossible to do anything if the Obamas of the world don’t want you to.
Comment by Vince P — June 3, 2008 @ 6:58 pm - June 3, 2008
Just curious: if the amendment does pass, would a same-sex marriage conducted in California between June 18 and certification of election results in November continue to be recognized in New York?
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 3, 2008 @ 7:49 pm - June 3, 2008
If the CA Supreme court really wanted this ruling to stick. They would have waited until after the November election.
There were enough signatures for this initiative to go on the ballot and it may have appeared there in November. But it wouldn’t have had the punch, the power and the backing it has now.
The CA Supreme court just lit a fire under this issue, and the money will be out there pushing this through. Sure, there are a lot of young people who couldn’t vote 8 years ago. Many, but not all of them don’t have a problem with gay marriage. But they do have a problem coming out and voting.
Comment by Leah — June 3, 2008 @ 8:09 pm - June 3, 2008
I blame Karl Rove.
Comment by American Elephant — June 4, 2008 @ 1:13 am - June 4, 2008
Vince P:
I like this as far as legislation goes but not for amending the state constitution. I think it’s rather absurd to pass amendments with only 50.1% of the vote. The Founders had great wisdom in making it more difficult. Legislation on the other hand is a different matter and to the victor goes the spoils in that case. Wish we could do that more here in Virginia…
Trace:
No one knows for sure but you can bet this would spark another round of lawsuits - in both states. Volokh Conspiracy had an interesting post about this last month. Even this amendment, if it passes, will be under attack in the courts. Sure, someone will try a Federal civil rights angle but that will undoubtedly fail. The most interesting I’ve seen though is this from LCR California. I’m not a lawyer and find the California constitutional law a confusing morass so beats me if this has any merit and/or would go anywhere. I’m sure somebody will try.
Leah:
This is one reason why I think this had more to do with a different view of constitutional rights by the majority of CA Justices than simply politics. Certainly if this was only about politics, the approach you suggest would have been far better for success. Heck, it would have worthy of that magnificent bastard Karl Rove…
Comment by John — June 4, 2008 @ 8:45 am - June 4, 2008
I blame Karl Rove.
LOL. I do too. My question is when is KR going to stop Obama???
Comment by John F in Indy — June 4, 2008 @ 9:35 am - June 4, 2008
“The one thing I envy California about is the ease in which the people can get something on the ballot. Here in Democrat-controlled corrupt Illinois, it’s impossible to do anything if the Obamas of the world don’t want you to.”
I think the western state’s constitutions have the referenda option written into their constitutions. Oregon was the first state to come up with the idea I think. Here in Washington, if the legislature is too spineless to act on a certain piece of legislation, it goes onto the ballot.
Comment by LCRW — June 4, 2008 @ 1:02 pm - June 4, 2008
Vince P.-
Just remember, it cuts both ways. If, ten years from now, support for same-sex marriage breaks the 50.1% mark the other way (as it likely will, in California at least), the constitution can be changed back. It’s not the kind of locked-in, stuck-with-it kind of thing that a federal amendment is, precisely because the process is so (relatively) easy.
Comment by Clint — June 5, 2008 @ 2:45 am - June 5, 2008
“The one thing I envy California about is the ease in which the people can get something on the ballot.”
Unfortunately, we get pretty much any kind of laws on our ballots, from simple and clear legislation to complicated economic or political issues.
I’d be happier of voters had to pass a little quiz about what each referendum actually said before earning the right to vote one way or the other. Of course, I’d be happier if _legislators_ also had to pass such a quiz about the text of a law before voting on it.
Comment by Phil — June 5, 2008 @ 4:51 am - June 5, 2008
That’s true.. but at least it was decided upon by the people or their represenatives and not an imposition from above.
My main objection is to this is the bypassing of the democratic process and the insecurity and resentment that results because of it.
Comment by Vince P — June 5, 2008 @ 8:18 am - June 5, 2008
[...] I believe it is extremely foolish to allow amendments with only 50.1% of popular support. As one commentor here put it concerning the fight in California: Just remember, it cuts both ways. If, ten years from [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Don’t Forget About Florida — June 5, 2008 @ 10:09 am - June 5, 2008
[...] and doing research for my dissertation, we received confirmation that California would be voting on amending the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus overturning the recent California Supreme Court [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » On Blogging & Debating the California Marriage Amendment — June 5, 2008 @ 5:45 pm - June 5, 2008