On Wednesday, though, I began wondering. Firstly, this margin compares quite positively against the earlier attempt to define marriage as "one woman and one man" (but who? Do all residents take it in turns?), which passed by 60-40. And this was with the combined might of the Mormon and Catholic churches, plus a some reclusive fundamentalists. That is to say, this was the absolute best - or rather, worst - they could manage; and things are only trending against them, as time moves on.
Then, I considered - what if 8 had been turned down? The battle would surely have had to be waged repeatedly. Perhaps, in their hateful victory, they've brought about their ultimate defeat, as now, the matter will be headed for judicial decision, either in the California Supreme Court, or the SCOTUS. And so it begins:
The issue before the court today is of far greater consequence than marriage equality alone ... Equal protection of the laws is not merely the cornerstone of the California Constitution, it is what separates constitutional democracy from mob rule tyranny. If allowed to stand, Prop 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority -- even for protected classes based on race, religion, national origin and gender. The proponents of Prop 8 waged a ruthless campaign of falsehood and fear, funded by millions of dollars from out-of-state interest groups. Make no mistake that their success in California has dramatically raised the stakes. What began as a struggle for marriage equality is today a fight for equality itself. I am confident that our high court will again demonstrate its principled independence in recognizing this danger, and in reasserting our constitution's promise of equality under the law.
-- City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who, along with Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel, has filed a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8. Previously, the court declined to hear a similar case, so the matter remains undecided - if it's an amendment to the constitution, it can be passed in this way, but if it's a revision to the constitution, it requires a different, and more rigorous, process. More appropriately, such wording would seek to deny rights to a specific group of people, violating the constitution.
Here comes the real victory. ^_^