The game’s not over, but we may be heading into the late innings: Sal DiMasi has deemed "unlikely" the passage of the "barriage" constitutional amendment (i.e. Travaglini-Lees). The anti-marriage groups and Governor Landslide are pushing for the outright ban, to be on the 2008 ballot if AG Reilly approves it.
It’s encouraging that the pro-marriage groups seemed to have made peace with the laissez-faire and nose-holding contingents, if three of the four candidates in this morning’s debate are to be believed. The movement still seems to be towards allowing marriage and "moving on". Nothing I’d like better.
Please share widely!
So is there any gossip about Reilly’s decision on the initiative petition?I don’t see how it can possibly pass the conditions set out in Article 48, Section 2–specifically the prohibition on initiatives intended to overturn judicial decisions–under any theory of interpretation. Am I missing something?I guess he’s going to be sued either way, and that this will get dragged out for a while in any case….
I don’t have any special knowledge on that, but from what I’ve read you seem to have the right idea.Reilly seems to be willing to make decisions based on the narrowest legal readings. That’s a kind of integrity, I guess, but I trust that his decision will be based on the law, not on politics.Politically, it might be better for him eventually to take a strong stand on the issue, since he’s bound to step in it either way…