A Fine Argument for Gay Marriage, but a Flawed Legal Opinion
“(if the prop. process even qualifies as legislative).”
Under the California referendum system, it is a constitutional change, which is what Prop. 8 did, amending the California Constitution.
Did you even READ Blatt’s article that you claim to agree with?
“Walker’s ruling, however, is not a policy brief, but a judicial decision striking down a popular provision in the California Constitution stipulating that the state only recognize unions between one man and one woman as “marriages.”"-BDB
There is no higher governmental authority than the will of the people, which is why the California Supreme Court couldn’t and didn’t try to block Prop. 8.
“…I’m having a hard time believing it’s a principled position and not merely a partisan one.”
As you wish, but again, did you read Blatt’s article?
“To be sure, he makes a good case for gay marriage, but a lousy one for usurping the power from the people to decide this issue. In this sense, his ruling becomes a political boon for the GOP — as it can tie his decision to the increasing sense that our governing bodies (e.g., Congress and the various bureaucracies it has created) are disregarding the popular will as they make laws and set policy.”-BDB
Setting aside the particulars and details of this case, having the lowest form of Federal Court judge overruling the will of the people of an entire sovereign state wouldn’t be cause for principled objection?
