You're smart. How do you interpret this: According to DailyKos, California Supreme Court Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion based on his state's precedent, not the Supreme Court, did not create a suspect class for gay folk, thereby leaving some wiggle room for debate:
There is ample precedent under CA law that alterations of fundamental rights cannot to done with a mere amendment via majority vote of the electorate. This would constitute a "revision" of the CA Constitution would requires 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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-05 08:19 pm (UTC)According to DailyKos, California Supreme Court Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion based on his state's precedent, not the Supreme Court, did not create a suspect class for gay folk, thereby leaving some wiggle room for debate:
There is ample precedent under CA law that alterations of fundamental rights cannot to done with a mere amendment via majority vote of the electorate. This would constitute a "revision" of the CA Constitution would requires 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.
hope?