Did you read it? First they say that civil unions are equivalent to marriage, and therefore there is no discriminatory result from the prop. Then, later, they agree that the marriages that were done during the short legal period should remain legal marriages, since marriage is different from civil union/domestic partner, and the prop didn't specifically say it was retroactive, anyway.
So now there are 3 classes of marriage in California. Regular marriage, special one-time only limited offer marriage and civil unions. Go figure.
I don't get the contortions. Their bodies must ache.
No, I just heard the Pacifica and NPR reports, where I got the impression that the argument was that whether or not they liked the law, it was the right of "the people" to change their state constitution at will, which makes no more sense than the real one.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
So now there are 3 classes of marriage in California. Regular marriage, special one-time only limited offer marriage and civil unions. Go figure.
I don't get the contortions. Their bodies must ache.
no subject
It's not over. It's just more tedious slogging.