Ibid wrote:If you go and read the "Prop 8 declared unconstitutional" thread found conveniently on this very section of the fora
Please don't patronize me.
you'll see that the argument against Prop. 8 did not in fact have anything to do with rights being repealed after being applied, and everything to do with the specifics of Prop 8.
Yeah, I read TGB's post too. However, the court opinion says, "By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause." So it has something to do with rights being repealed after being applied. TGB is of course correct that the California civil unions law is very relevant to the opinion: that the referendum did nothing but affect the usage of the word "marriage" was why the court found that the people of California didn't have a "legitimate reason" for their referendum. Since Washington has a similar civil unions law, the parallel is nearly perfect.
A referendum to repeal could very well be passed in spite of the 9th circuit (or indeed SCOTUS, unless SCOTUS decides to broaden the ruling), provided it was worded properly.
Obviously the wording of any proposed referendum in Washington is still to be determined, and those writing it will probably attempt to do so in such a way that the 9th circuit court ruling won't apply (or at least to help them make that argument in court). But the situation is very similar to the one in California, so that may not be possible.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson