This may seem pedantic, but I think it’s a very important point. A government cannot nullify or prevent a marriage, any more than it can legislate the value of pi. Homosexuals can marry in all 50 states and in all countries. Which is not to belittle the fact that governments can (but should not) choose not to recognize the marriages which exist.
I think the Prop 8 zealots will be satisfied with nothing less than breaking up the marriages already performed, as the very existence of those unions offends them.
I also think that not a few Prop8ers would be happy to see the partners in gay marriages stoned.
That’s a valid point, but what same-sex couples want is not only the “natural law” fact of marriage, but government recognition of their marriage, and they want it for both tangible and intangible reasons.
So your observation is correct, but in this discussion not all that useful.
Let’s assume the CA Supreme Court does rule that the can no longer recognize existing same-sex marriages. What kind of precedent does that set? Could someone compile a list of Prop 8 donors and their spouses, draft an initiative saying something along the lines of “The following marriages are no longer valid or recognized in CA;” and get it on the ballot? What if that passed?
I believe laws targeting specific individuals are usually verboten due to the equal protection clause.
How about targetting all couples with more than three children? Could that fly?
Virtually certainly no.
Are you seriously asking for the legal principles governing this?
Well, to a large degree I was extending the question of ‘retaliatory amendments’ - making amendments that are just as amoral and asinine as the same-sex-banning one, with the intent to target just the other side.
But, objectively speaking, if you can hastily ‘clarify’ marriage to only refer to couples with multiple genders involved, how is that different from ‘clarifying’ which marriages will be accepted based on the number of children? Aside from the fact this one would never pass, that is.
Oh, certainly, it’s only reasonable that they should want that, and the majority damn well ought to give it to them. We do have a legitimate battle ahead of us, and it’s still far from won. I still think the point I made isn’t stressed enough, though.
Briefly: one touchstone the courts look to is the question of whether a practice is “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.” Same-sex marriage is not; having several kids without restriction is.
None have made it that far, at least not yet.
Only if there is no conflict with the federal constitution. States cannot impinge upon rights that are affirmed federally (see “incorporation”). Most of it has been incorporated already and is binding upon the states, including the Fourteenth Amendment.