I am a little concerned with why did not the judicial branch in California, evaluate the constitutionality of Prop 8 before the election.
There can only be one of two outcomes of the Prop 8 vote.
It passes
It fails
With only two possible outcomes was it not possible to evaluate the constitutionality of the outcomes?
Or was Prop 8 proposed with the assumption that it would fail? If so, that is a very bad assumption and reflects poor judgment on who ever sponsored it.
If an outcome of a public vote can be unconstitutional, it probably would be a good idea to fix it before the election.
As it stands now, I can understand why people are pissed. Don't ask me my opinion, if my opinion doesn't matter.
__________________
abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.
|