Opinion: Proposition 8: Reading between the ending lines

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

The final questioning by the justices revolved around what they seemed to see as two fundamental rights: the rights of gays and lesbians to marry the mate of their choice, and the rights of voters to amend their own constitution according to the processes set up in the state Constitution.

The latter fits with Kenneth Starr’s statement: ‘One of the inalienable rights articulated in the Constitution is control over the Constitution.’

But lawyers for the other side countered that the Constitution places limits on the voters and on how changes can be made, including by setting up a judiciary to rule on such matters.

The court had given earlier indications that it had a tentative ruling in place, but it offered no outright hint about which way it would ultimately rule. But the justices’ questions suggested grave doubts about overriding the will of the voters who had embedded new wording into the constitution. They suggested equal concern about invalidating previous marriages based on an initiative that doesn’t say anything specifically about those marriages.