Gov. Hopeful Phil Angelides Plans To "Overrule" California's Gay-Marriage Ban

Correction: As Prop 22 did not amend the state constitution, there is nothing untoward about Angelides promising to overturn the law. I was mistaken about it being part of the Constitution. So the only objection to it is on policy grounds, not procedural ones, and if that's what California decides, democratically, I guess I have no problem with it.

Thanks to Alex, JD, and SeanM for correcting my loose shit.

...

I'm so glad the reasonable centrists/libertarians have prevailed, and we don't have that icky, bigoted FMA as the law of the land.

After all, there's no danger of judges overruling laws or even state constitutional amendments, or governors claiming the power to redact portions of the lawfully-amended state constitution at will.

No chance. No chance at all.

I wish those who say they're against the FMA on "states' rights grounds" would just admit that, by "states' rights," they mean the "right" of the citizens of a state to have their laws and constitutions altered by unelected judges or by governors taking liberties with the law.

In other words, they support the "right" of people to have gay marriage forced upon them no matter what democratic process they attempt to stop it.

I mean, democracy is nice and all, Old Bean, but there are limits.

"The people's right to choose the laws under which they shall live is overrated, though not overtly so." -- Thomas Jefferson, from Stuff Jefferson Said About Gay Marriage Which Of Course He Always Imagined Was An Implied Constitutional Right Though He Never Actually Said So (That's Why It's An Implied Right, Dummy), 1st Edition, Andrew Sullivan & Assocs. Press, 2002.

posted by Ace at 09:35 PM

| Access Comments