(no subject)

[fpb]

The Supreme Court of California deserves honour for having gone against its own clear views in the service of the law and the people. What it will get is something I am familiar with: the most vicious, sustained and homicidal floods of hate-mail you can NOT imagine. If you haven't been at the ugly end of a homosexualist hate campaign, you simply have no idea what hatred is like. It is not only frightful, it is foul; it is a thing that makes you feel dirty even if you resist it, that makes you want to turn back and abandon the field merely because it is so disgusting. Even standing against it is depressing and frightening. I just hope the justices are prepared for what awaits them.

Comments

[blue-sky-day.livejournal.com]

I don't understand how they could even hear the case, legally. How can the state supreme court rule on whether a state constitutional amendment is valid? Last time around, the anti-gay marriage initiative was to pass a normal bill, which could be and was overturned by the state supreme court. This time around, the campaigners went for a constitutional amendment, which isn't subject to state supreme court review. So, having not followed the matter too closely, I'm wondering what the legal legerdemain was that allowed the Supreme Court to hear this case.