furrbear | California Constitution 101

Hattip to Susan Russell:

Proposition 8 attempts to change our fundamental law by means of an initiative amendment, on a simple majority vote, threatens all of our fundamental constitutional rights – including the right to freedom of religion.

Article XVIII of the California Constitution sets up different procedures for important “revisions” of the Constitution’s fundamental law, on the one hand, and relatively minor “amendments” on the other.
Changes that affect core aspects of our constitutional government are “revisions” that require passage either by two-thirds majorities in both houses of the legislature plus submission to the people, or a full-blown constitutional convention.

An “amendment,” on the other hand, involves a relatively minor “addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.” Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 118-19.

Nothing could be more fundamental to our constitutional government than equal protection of the law.
A change to the Constitution that deprives a discreet segment of the population of the right to equal protection of the law in order to take away a further fundamental right (here, the right to marry) cannot be characterized a simple “addition or change within the lines of the original instrument.” It is a radical, fundamental abrogation of a core principle of our constitutional law.

It follows, then, that Proposition 8 is void.

Class dismissed.

That's one path the argument may take. There are also precedents that benefit the other side. Anyway it plays, the wheels of justice don't grind fast.