Yes, there's now an ACLU writ-petition (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html) before the CA Supreme Court to that effect. The press release is worth reading, primarily for paragraphs 2-4, which state in plain English why revising (as opposed to amending) the state constitution cannot and should not be done merely by passing an initiative on a bare majority vote.
It's an important point to get laymen, non-lawyers, to understand and see as being reasonable, else this will be portrayed as attempting to thwart democratic process.
(And sure, of course I voted "no".)
Also, time to get all those existing "traditional" marriages (including mine) tested to see if they're verifiably between "one man and one woman" according to some judge's criteria for what those words mean, nei? (Yeah, I know, ex post facto. However, I think we should insist on Prop. 8's criteria be applied to all new "traditional" marriages, good and hard.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-05 11:15 pm (UTC)It's an important point to get laymen, non-lawyers, to understand and see as being reasonable, else this will be portrayed as attempting to thwart democratic process.
(And sure, of course I voted "no".)
Also, time to get all those existing "traditional" marriages (including mine) tested to see if they're verifiably between "one man and one woman" according to some judge's criteria for what those words mean, nei? (Yeah, I know, ex post facto. However, I think we should insist on Prop. 8's criteria be applied to all new "traditional" marriages, good and hard.)