Evidently, it’s now somehow illegitimate to vote on the substance of an issue without being fully informed of the legal posture first. Sure, a majority opposes gay marriage — but did they know that four justices of the California Supreme Court disagree with them (whereas three don’t)?
Speaking as someone who would have voted no on Prop 8: Who cares?
“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state.”
Treacher snarkily retrofits her “logic” to fit the election results:
“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their views of race relations and male beauty were,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are picking the next President of the United States.”
Everyone see what she’s up to? I once served on a jury during a criminal trial and whenever a cop would testify, the judge would go out of his way to say that we shouldn’t let our respect for the law color our assessment of the credibility of his testimony. Simply judge him on the merits, we were told, just as we would anyone else. Pelosi’s saying the opposite. Never mind the merits; don’t you know that gay marriage is in the Constitution — as of, er, six months ago, per the decision of a narrowly divided court? Exit question for Madam Speaker: If Scalia and Thomas bring back freedom of contract, you’ll be super keen to block any amendments that would diminish freedom in our country by overturning the decision, right?