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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

LOL. I do too. My question is when is KR going to stop Obama???

The one thing I envy California about is the ease in which the people can get something on the ballot.

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:

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?

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:

If the CA Supreme court really wanted this ruling to stick. They would have waited until after the November election.

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…

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.