|
it's not very high for a couple of reasons.
the first problem is that freedom of speech is protected conduct with historical precedence.
freedom to marry is not only not protected, it's historically held as properly regulated by the state.
the second problem is that in California homosexual partners already have laws protecting from discrimination. In everything except federal, they have the same state rights.
so there is no "right" to marry, and there is no discrimination in terms of the conduct of married people as pertains to homosexual partners other than the symbolism of "marriage".
that's why I think it'd be far more sturdier legal argument to trace where the definition of marriage comes from and argue that California is prohibited from defining a religious institution. This argument would be bolstered, I think, if advocates either started a church with doctrine explicitly allowing homosexual marriages or convincing a traditional church denomination to ammend doctrine specifically supporting homosexual marriages. With those, the argument becomes that the state has no authority over church conduct and could not discriminate between what different churches were certifying as valid marriages.
the supermajority amendments are on ballot pretty regularly. they always fail, we like our hyperdemocracy here in Cali, lol.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|