The ballot measure repeals Proposition 8, which California voters approved in 2008 to define marriage as between a man and a woman in the state's constitution, stripping same-sex couples of the legal right to marry.
There’s a finite amount of political will. Expending effort to make a change, even a positive one, that doesn’t actually show a benefit takes more of it than something with perceived immediate benefits.
For obvious reasons, codifying those protections feels less redundant at the moment.
Codifying a right in the constitution when the case law making it legal has been explicitly name dropped as something to overturn by a supreme court justice is not in the least performative.
Before Roe was overturned, it was understood that the supreme court didn’t flip precedent because it messed with too much stuff, removing legal assumptions that people have been relying on, like unconstitutional laws banning gay marriage or abortion being inapplicable.
Not necessarily in this case I would think. If the supreme court got rid of the cases that make same sex marriage legal nationwide, and the republicans due to not doing away with filibuster or due to infighting among themselves don’t pass a law to ban it nationwide, it would revert to the state by state basis it used to have. In such a scenario, which isn’t that implausible, Cali probably wouldn’t want to still have old stuff banning it on the books
If this was possible why hadn’t it been done sooner?
I mean to be fair it probably wasn’t necessary until last Tuesday.
There’s a finite amount of political will. Expending effort to make a change, even a positive one, that doesn’t actually show a benefit takes more of it than something with perceived immediate benefits.
For obvious reasons, codifying those protections feels less redundant at the moment.
Because it’s all performative.
Codifying a right in the constitution when the case law making it legal has been explicitly name dropped as something to overturn by a supreme court justice is not in the least performative.
Before Roe was overturned, it was understood that the supreme court didn’t flip precedent because it messed with too much stuff, removing legal assumptions that people have been relying on, like unconstitutional laws banning gay marriage or abortion being inapplicable.
Not necessarily in this case I would think. If the supreme court got rid of the cases that make same sex marriage legal nationwide, and the republicans due to not doing away with filibuster or due to infighting among themselves don’t pass a law to ban it nationwide, it would revert to the state by state basis it used to have. In such a scenario, which isn’t that implausible, Cali probably wouldn’t want to still have old stuff banning it on the books
How are you still underestimating Nazis?
A lot of politics is performative. This is not.