I’ve been meaning to add a word here on the decision by the California Supreme Court rejecting, by a narrow, 4-3 vote, a pre-election challenge to the Marriage Amendment on this November’s ballot. Readers will recall that I predicted on June 23 that the Courts would allow the measure to go to the ballot. I said "(w)hile some readers may be disappointed in the Court’s decision earlier over-ruling the ban on same-sex marriages in California, this lawyer predicts the Court will not take the marriage amendment initiative off the November ballot before a vote — at least not yet."
My prediction was based on the strong deference California courts must give to the validity of ballot measures to qualify for the ballot. The right to initiative is a fundamental constitutional right in California.
Now, supporters of the Marriage Amendment need to kick into gear and show the Los Angeles Times and their other liberal opponents that the double-digit lead for this measure in the polls is not the "small majority" the Times would like it to be. (Remember, the Times, which a few months ago published the headline "Obama Captivates The World," doesn’t want the public to know that its’ polling likely shows undecided Hispanic voters in the Presidential race favor the Marriage Amendment. Yikes!)
However, after it passes, the Marriage Amendment will once again end up in the laps of the California Supreme Court — and maybe even the U.S. Supreme Court. And the constitutional issues presented to the Courts then will be somewhat different from the issues presented in qualifying it for the ballot. Let us remember how important it is for the U.S. Supreme Court to be populated by traditionalists, which brings a question squarely into focus for supporters of the Marriage Amendment, which Presidential candidate is most likely to replace the Court’s aging liberals with right-thinking jurists?