Jack (qbear) wrote,


Bad news:

But some good news:

Via DailyKos:

Justice George, who wrote the opinion, based on California court precedent and NOT on U.S. Supreme Ct rulings. The case relied upon heavily was from the 40's involving mixed race marriages which stood for the principle that choice of marital partner is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed without without a truly compelling governmental interest.

Justice George's opinion did not set up a new suspect class based based upon sexual orientation as most commentators seem to assume. Here's the good part. There is ample precedent under CA law that alterations of fundamental rights cannot be done with a mere amendment via majority vote of the electorate. This would constitute a "revision" of the CA Constitution which would require 2/3 vote of both Houses of Legislature AND a 2/3 vote by the electorate or alternatively a State Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 vote of both houses.

It will have to be litigated but we will prevail.

In other news, I was called for jury duty this week. This morning I was seated -- Juror #9. We were sworn in, dismissed for lunch, and when we resumed the judge informed us that the case had been settled over the break. I'm free for another year! The trial would have lasted till mid-December, so I'm kind of happy. Yet a little sad--I've never been through a court trial before. But now I can say I've been a juror--for 5 minutes!
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.