Another thought on Prop 8.

[brooksmoses]

zwol says about what I wish I could have said on the subject, and more.

A key quote: "As you might expect, appellate judges are masters of hair-splitting — they have to be — what you might not expect is that they’re also very, very good at subtext. One of the subtexts that you see fairly often boils down to 'We looked under every stone for an excuse to rule otherwise and could not find one.' This decision is dripping with it." He then goes on to point out some examples.

Meanwhile, if the state goes bankrupt because of the stupid proposition system we've got (and the related inability to pass budgets by simple majority), can we reboot and do away with it?