Matt Franck’s reflections on the latest exemplar of West Coast judicial arrogance are, characteristically, on the mark. To answer Matt’s question: I am inclined to think that the plain sense of the people — in case they enact the proposed amendment — would be: no same-sex marriage in California. Zero. Zilch. And that’s that. I am further inclined to think that, given this plain sense of the proposal, any same-sex marriages entered into between June and November are, and should be understood by those entering into them, as annullable — lawful in form, but possessed of a latent defect such that, at a later time, it might be determined by further legal action to be no marriage at all.