Brown is offering a legal opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
The proponents of Prop 8 believe and have in their ballot arguments the claim that the initiative will invalidate all same-sex marriages regardless of when and where they were performed. In the case of passage, they will sue to see that implementation follows their interpretation.
Your smoking analogy doesn't fly. People who smoked indoors prior to the anti-smoking ordinances weren't grandfathered in and allowed to continue smoking in bars.
The zoning laws example is better, and court cases may play out that way. However, the article you quote points out that ballot arguments have been used by courts to figure out "the will of the people" when interpreting an initiative statute.
no subject
Brown is offering a legal opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
The proponents of Prop 8 believe and have in their ballot arguments the claim that the initiative will invalidate all same-sex marriages regardless of when and where they were performed. In the case of passage, they will sue to see that implementation follows their interpretation.
Your smoking analogy doesn't fly. People who smoked indoors prior to the anti-smoking ordinances weren't grandfathered in and allowed to continue smoking in bars.
The zoning laws example is better, and court cases may play out that way. However, the article you quote points out that ballot arguments have been used by courts to figure out "the will of the people" when interpreting an initiative statute.