This is a Gun Fight

This time, the issue before the justices was whether the voters’ power to amend the Constitution by initiative.

—sfgate.com

I’m confused. I thought the the case before the California Supreme Court was against Prop. 8 on the basis that it is discrimination. Instead, if I read it correctly, this is a case about the legal particulars of California State Constitutional law and whether Proposition 8 was an amendment or revision to its constitution.

The language of Justice George’s decision seemed almost regretful, as he wrote that “our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution.” Instead, he wrote, “our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

—NYTimes.com

I get the spirit of the case but is gay marriage simply just context here? It’s important background for sure but it should be central to the case, not just the media coverage.

I’m pretty dumb about a lot of things-laws especially considering all the ones I’ve broken-so Law People, please explain how this case is a direct shot at heterosexism.

Is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047 the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight? If I understand this right, the central argument of the case attempted to repeal the initiative on a technicality. What? You can’t defeat discrimination on a technicality.