"Heck," of course. Were you wondering?
I believe I can see what's coming. The California Supreme Court has agreed to take up cases against the recently-passed ban on homosexual marriage in California. As the article states:
All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group.My understanding is that California already has laws in place allowing civil unions, which allow homosexuals basically all the rights and privileges of marriage--just not the word "married." It seems hard to dispute, then, that the plaintiffs in these cases are arguing that their civil rights are somehow violated when other people have the right not to call them "married."
Personally, I pretty much take it for granted that no true "right" comes at the expense of someone else's "right."
At any rate, I think what's coming is that the California supremes will rule in favor of the plaintiffs, and, having overturned the previous effort by the California voters to outlaw homosexual marriage, and then having overturned the constitutional amendment they passed, will have effectively declared the authority of the California Supreme Court to do whatever the heck it wants, with the voters having no recourse whatsoever.
You gotta wonder why they bother having a legislature and a governor out there. Or, for that matter, a voting booth. L'etat, c'est le California Supreme Court.