Ahhh... the irony. ;-)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/prop-8-language.html
Proposition 8 rebuttal language coming back to haunt opponents
10:47 AM | March 5, 2009 California Supreme Court justices pointed out to opponents of Proposition 8 today that their rebuttal warning on the ballot initiative that a “yes” vote would deprive gay marriages of legal recognition “regardless of where or when performed” seemed to concede that the vote retroactively invalidated the 18,000 same-sex marriages.
I missed the beginning. These comments are encouraging.
Of course, they already applied “excessive use of judicial power” in their first ruling (IMO).
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/california-just.html
State justices speak to people’s initiative power
11:18 AM | March 5, 2009
Justices of the California Supreme Court seemed reluctant today to override the will of the people as expressed by the narrow majority vote to effectively ban gay marriage with Proposition 8.
Before supporters of the November ballot measure even got their chance to speak to the court in San Francisco, the justices appeared to be warning Proposition 8 opponents that their arguments that the vote should be invalidated could be viewed as an excessive use of judicial power.
The state Constitution talks about “the great power of the people” and their right to amend the guiding principles, said Justice Joyce L. Kennard. “As judges, our power is very limited. We would like to hear from you why this court can willy-nilly disregard the will of the people to change the Constitution.”
Chief Justice Ronald M. George observed that the court’s decision on whether Proposition 8 deprives gay citizens of an inalienable right “is going to have implications for future efforts if everything that could conceivably be characterized as an inalienable right is outside the people’s initiative power.”
It’s seems absurd (of course, it’s California) that they could disqualify an iniative because voters don’t read all the rebuttals. What are we to do, ask them on polling day if they’ve read all the arguments for and against? That would be ruled a violation of election law.