It seems to me that it would be most prudent to direct efforts against the consitutional amendment, primarily.
The other bills, while objectionable, probably lack the teeth of constitutionality (Or at least provide a much greyer area).
I'd think that a blanket impeachment of judges who supported the initial ruling would cause some serious constitutional concerns, as would canceling gay marriages already performed -- on the other hand, a constitutional amendment would be a serious problem.
The other bills look like a smokescreen -- and provide a useful way to draw the attention of opposing activists away from what really matters -- the amendment (which is the only thing that appears to me to be a potentially big deal).
I'd hate to see the amendment become law because of a divided opposition fighting all of the battles, instead of focusing resources on the most critical, and spilling over what's optional...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2005-04-11 20:41 (UTC)The other bills, while objectionable, probably lack the teeth of constitutionality (Or at least provide a much greyer area).
I'd think that a blanket impeachment of judges who supported the initial ruling would cause some serious constitutional concerns, as would canceling gay marriages already performed -- on the other hand, a constitutional amendment would be a serious problem.
The other bills look like a smokescreen -- and provide a useful way to draw the attention of opposing activists away from what really matters -- the amendment (which is the only thing that appears to me to be a potentially big deal).
I'd hate to see the amendment become law because of a divided opposition fighting all of the battles, instead of focusing resources on the most critical, and spilling over what's optional...