...isn't it now part of the CA constitution? What can a state court do? How is the court not bound to follow the Constitution?

I would be thrilled to see this awful law overturned, but how? Can someone more versed in the CA Constitution explain?

I've lived here for the last 23 years and am so sick of these propositions. It may sound all warm and fuzzy to have the voters decide these issues, but isn't that what our Legislature and courts are supposed to do? We can't even amend our state Constitution to require a simple majority to pass a budget, which has resulted in protracted budget arguments every year, with the state going budget-less longer and longer each time. But some right wing activists and out of state Mormons have to make darn sure that our state Supreme Court's decisions are overturned by changing the Constitution. It's ridiculous, and no matter what the outcome of the legal challenges, it will drag on and on.

... an "Equal Protection Clause" which specifically protects the rights of ALL citizens. For the voters of California to single out a particular minority, and remove one of their rights that was already in place (the right to marry the person you love), would require the Equal Protection Clause to be removed from the Constitution.

That would require a REVISION, not simply an AMENDMENT. A REVISION requires a 2/3 vote by the citizens of California, not just a slim majority - and for good reason. The Equal Protection Clause is in place to protect minorities from the will of the majority.

Years ago, Prop 22 (a law to define marriage between one man and one woman) was voted FOR in California, winning by a huge, 61% margin. However, the California Supreme Court (after a lawsuit) reviewed Prop 22, and invalidated it due to the fact that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

So, it would seem that the same court will more than likely do the same thing to Prop 8.

The court has agreed to review 3 lawsuits. It could take months for a ruling.

But the way I read it, you'd first have to vote -out- some language in the CA state constitution banning discrimination (Article 1 Sec. 31, and maybe other stuff too) to avoid internal inconsistency. Then, you could build in language specifying in very unambiguous terms what personal affliations (be they biological, religious, whatever) -can- be the subject of discriminatory legislation.

Take that with a pound of salt though, I'm no constitutional attorney.

That puzzles me, too. I am not a lawyer, but I think the initiative opponents are arguing that that it shouldn't become part of the state constitution. The court has essentially said, okay, let's for the time being act like it is part of the constitution, but we have to take a closer look to see if really should be there.

Constitutional law is essentially meta-law. In this case it there may be self-referential meta-law issues involved. Hence the suggestion that this initiative may cross the fuzzy line between amending the constitution into revising it, the latter reasonably being a more difficult thing to do.

(Simpler example: making it even easier to pass amendments would -- I presume -- would have to be done in a revision rather than an amendment.)

I have no idea how the judges will rule, but the revision argument sounds reasonable, given that that the initiative is trying to define who the constitution does and does not apply to.

Add also that the CA constitutions grants ALL citizens INALIENABLE rights, which means "impossible to take away." The NAACP, Asian-American & Hispanic-American Legal Defense Funds have filed petitions to block the implementation of Prop 8. Clearly, they see the handwriting on the wall.

1. First of all, it's moronic to allow the citizenry to amend any Constitution with a majority vote. California is entirely too democratic. The Founding Fathers would be less than pleased.

2. The plaintiffs are arguing not that Prop. 8 shouldn't become part of the Constitution but rather than it can't, because it directly contradicts pre-existing Constitutional provisions as interpreted just this year by the Supreme Court. Such a change would require a 2/3 majority, which Prop. 8 did not get. Therefore, I'm with Arnold--I don't see any way that Prop. 8 will hold up to judicial review, and thank God for that. I can't wait to hear the whining from the right.

(As an aside, I was dismayed by the recall that put Arnold into power--see #1 above--but I think he's done a pretty good job overall. He's the kind of Republican I wouldn't mind seeing in the White House in just over 8 years.)

I can't wait to hear the whining from the right.

No doubt they will continue to ignore the fact that 6 out of 7 of the current justices were appointed by Republicans, just like they ignored it after the decision last May.

It amounts to the fact that the Proposition itself is invalid for any number of reasons, thus the constitution was never actually amended. Not a legal challenge to the constitution, but to the proposition itself.

Off-topic, but I'll see if I can steer back.

I agree with Cary Tenis; we voted like moviegoers on Arnold, not like citizens. That alone bugged me, and Arnold plus his handlers took advantage of that.

I suppose you could argue that he's swung to the wishes of the voters, at least in regards to 8. Of course, that isn't necessarily a good thing in some people's eyes, however good it is for others.

Certainly, I'd like to see more moderate, "real" republicans in the GOP. I don't call Arnold that, even beyond the constitutional blocks to him getting into such high office - which I'd support even if I was 100% behind him. He checks to see where the wind is blowing before deciding his route.

If he really wants to impress me, he'd throw his considerable weight behind unequivocally opposing 8 (as opposed to "well, it's kind of a bad idea") and fixing our screwed up budget passing problem. 2/3rds for such is lame. He can't do these himself, but he can do more than ride on the coattails of whatever benefits him most.