Come On, Arnold
Somewhat surprisingly, the Democrat-controlled state assembly voted to allow gay marriage in California. While this clearly flies in the face of the voters' wishes--as expressed in anti-gay marriage Prop. 22--it's exciting to be in the vanguard again. (It also may be a comment on gerrymandering.)
But this is too much for financially conservative, socially liberal Republican governor A. Schwarzenegger. (I often think this issue is an age thing--I know a number of older liberals who don't like the idea, while I know younger conservatives who don't mind it.)
It would be a bit odd to have both the legislative and executive branches say "drop dead" to the people. That's what the judiciary is for. Still, for a guy who made a film where he had a baby, I'm disappointed at his lack of adventurousness.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:31 AM
3 Comments:
So the citizens passed a law saying there shall be no gay marriage. Doesn't that make the bill passed by the assembly illegal?
Good question. Let's have the governor sign the bill and find out what happens.
Methinks LAGuy is being a bit cute. It's quite possible, perhaps likely, that there is no problem with the legislature doing this. The analogy would be that if the legislature passes a law this year saying marriage age is 30, they are free to pass a law next year saying it's 20.
Here in Ohio we call it the initiative; it's a law like any other, except that it was effected by direct, popular vote. The relevant legislative body is free to repeal it the next day. This is rare, presumably because legislatures fear being so in your face to the voters, or because they're happy to duck responsibility altogether, saying,"Hey, the people have spoken."
The only likely reasons it could be illegal would be if the people adopted a constitutional amendment, or if the direct democracy laws provide some sort of brake, denying the legislature the power to act against the law once it has been adopted by the people's vote.
Either one of these is tricky, though, because opponents will try to find ways to argue that their new action somehow addresses different subject matter. Worse, in the end, we're subject to the good faith of government, including the courts, to uphold the limitation in question. As we well know, such good faith cannot be relied upon.
Post a Comment
<< Home