Views do change. So if you think they've changed in this regard, hold another referendum. The legislature has no power to override a statute passed by referendum. That's in the constitution. Its attempt to do so is unconstitutional.
The second claim is pure sophistry. The referendum established the definition of marriage in California; the amended text doesn't say "for the purposes of this section, and this section only", and certainly neither the text of the question nor any of the campaign material or speeches, on either side, suggested in any way that the change would relate only to out-of-state marriages.
Beside which, I very much doubt that a state which allows domestic gay marriages can refuse to recognise interstate ones. The Full Faith and Credit clause would seem to exclude such an option (provided that the specific interstate marriage in question would have been allowed had it been performed locally), and I doubt DOMA would help in such a case. So that can't have been the referendum's effect.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-09-11 04:09 am (UTC)The second claim is pure sophistry. The referendum established the definition of marriage in California; the amended text doesn't say "for the purposes of this section, and this section only", and certainly neither the text of the question nor any of the campaign material or speeches, on either side, suggested in any way that the change would relate only to out-of-state marriages.
Beside which, I very much doubt that a state which allows domestic gay marriages can refuse to recognise interstate ones. The Full Faith and Credit clause would seem to exclude such an option (provided that the specific interstate marriage in question would have been allowed had it been performed locally), and I doubt DOMA would help in such a case. So that can't have been the referendum's effect.