“A ‘Yes’ vote would add a new provision to the constitution that would give the legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite sex couples only.”
At least one constitutional expert disagrees:
Andrea Freeman is an assistant professor at the University of Hawaii’s William S. Richardson School of Law and teaches a course on constitutional law. She said the amendment is clear.
“The amendment clarified that the legislature could choose to reserve marriage only for opposite sex couples,” she said. “But it definitely does not state that it is on the only thing it can do.”
McDermott contends that according to settled law, the people’s perception of the meaning of a constitutional vote carries precedence.
“What did the people understand they were voting on? Between a man and a woman only, because that’s what they were told by the Office of Elections,” said McDermott.
McDermott says he’ll take his case to the state Supreme Court if the circuit court rules against him.