![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some thoughts on November ballot
Jul. 7th, 2008 09:21 pmThe initiative on the California November ballot that would amend the State constitution to ban gay marriage is, of course, predictable. But staggering in its arrogance. Not specifically because of the gay issue, but because it proposes, by a simple majority vote, 50% + 1, to take away a right that has been already recognized by the State Supreme Court.
Suppose the voters in some state decided it wasn't in accord with their religious principles (or whatever) to allow women or blacks or Asians or people of Irish descent to vote. Or hold public office. Or own property. Or marry someone of a different race. Or send their kids to school. And they poured huge amounts of money into a campaign, much of it from out of state. And all they need is 50% + 1 votes.
Is there any legal precedent for taking away such a freedom? If so, I'd like to propose taking away Dubya's "right" to run for President. Retroactively.
Suppose the voters in some state decided it wasn't in accord with their religious principles (or whatever) to allow women or blacks or Asians or people of Irish descent to vote. Or hold public office. Or own property. Or marry someone of a different race. Or send their kids to school. And they poured huge amounts of money into a campaign, much of it from out of state. And all they need is 50% + 1 votes.
Is there any legal precedent for taking away such a freedom? If so, I'd like to propose taking away Dubya's "right" to run for President. Retroactively.
