Earlier, the California Supreme Court found that there was a right to homosexual marriage in their constitution, which obviated the law passed by referendum that said marriage is between a man and a woman. Yesterday, the voters of California passed a constitutional amendment restoring the original referendum's intent. Now, "cvil rights advocates" are filing suit in California to overturn the amendment.
While I don't really care who marries who, so long as they don't scare the horses, the fact is, that I feel no need to tell anyone who to marry or not marry based on sexual preferences. I tried talking my son out of marrying his wife, but he persisted, even though I am sure that the marriage is doomed. But that is my son, someone with whom I have a very special relationship. So how can I tell people that I don't even know not to marry? Actually, the best argument against anyone marrying, is that it is the leading cause of divorce.
But the interesting thing about the article mentioned above is that the California Supreme Court went specifically against the expressed will of the people of California by finding a "right" that was carefully hidden from the eyes of the layman, detectable only by those with the right kind of legalistic scholarship of mind.
But the amendment is to their state constitution. Under the division of labor known as the system of checks and balances, the supreme court could only interpret the law, not create it, as they did earlier. For their supreme court to find that the amendment passed in response to their earlier ruling is unconstitutional will create its own constitutional crisis. After all, it is the province of the legislature to promulgate laws, not the supreme court. For the court to take on this task is deliciously fun, having made an excrement sandwich with their ruling, they are now being asked to garnish it with mayonnaise.