Legal question re: prop 8 (not political)

My understanding is that it can not be unconstitutional under the CA state constitution, since it is now part of the constitution.

I believe any state constitution/ammendments can be found unconsitutional according the federal constitution.

I'm not sure about this at all. ASA22 and ChrisM would probably know for sure.

Good question. I don't know.

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV...

 The short answer is no.  Whenever an amendment to a Constitution is passed, it supersedes any previous contradictory parts of the Constitution, and the amendment does not have to specifically state which parts those are.

 For example, the 17th amendment to the US Constitution declares that senators from the various states will be selected by popular vote.  Previously, they had been appointed by the state legislatures, so that the state governments had their interests represented in the federal government.  The 17th amendment changed that provision, without stating in the amendment exactly what was being altered from the original document.

 The California Supreme Court must judge the constitutionality of a law by comparing it to the constitution of that state, therefore this amendment cannot be challenged in state court.  A case would have to go to the Supreme Court of the US to overturn this amendment, as Federal courts trump state courts.  Such a decision would also have the effect of overturning similar constitutional clauses or amendments in several other states as well, and I think SCOTUS is more likely to leave it as a state's rights issue under the 10th amendment rather than ruling on it in a federal sense.  That is, unless the make up of the court changes drastically over the next couple of years...

 Just my $0.02.  Like I said, I'm not a lawyer.

That surprised me too...

They reported that the fact that minorities were coming out more to vote, particularly Latino (especially the Latino's as Catholic organizations made huge contributions to the yes cause) and African-american's hurt the No on 8 cause...becuase these groups are largley more involved in the churches that were championing the Yes on 8.  To me, I find this odd, since it is for civil rights that they were coming out to vote, and yet, they voted against a civil rights issue the mirrors closely issues related to minorities in the past. 

Today I am crushed, I will be for a while....But eventually I will HTFU and begin the fight anew.  But honestly, I said this in my log...I felt like last night, someone told me to go "sit in the back of the bus".  I thought about putting signs around my office on a few water fountains saying "straights" on some and "Gays" on others...and doing the same with bathroom doors...but that would not mean anything to the people here, as I suspect most of the people I work with voted against prop 8...so it would be preaching to the choir....

I didn't mean to bring politics to a non political thread.  Many have a false conclusion that all of CA is libral...and in reality, only the most populated coastal cities are...

On a side note...I was offended that my polling place was a church that had a Yes on 8 sign on its front lawn.  I felt that was in really bad taste, and next time I vote I will have to do an absentee ballot, in fear of bursting into flames going into the church again. 

Just as an FYI, that may not have been legal.  Check with your local voting board. 

Canada welcomes you ...  I was watching this issue closely and was shocked by the result.  Someday this discrimiation will end.

Nice try, we're keeping him.  And while we're at it, we still want you to take Celine Dion back.

We worked really hard to get you guys to take her.  Yes we can...

You ask some very good and tangled questions, and yes, the main challenge is that it's inconsistent with other constitutional provisions.  See http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage6-2008nov06,0,2331815.story (article addresses the 2/3 vs 51% issue as well)

as for what happens to the current marriages, I believe they will remain valid, which creates some sticky situations of its own (now if a gay couple gets divorced they cannot marry again, etc.)  But even that I suppose is up for debate, or will be

Sorry I don't have a lot of answers, I don't think many people do

As of [the date of the amendment], a marriage is between a man and a woman.  As of woof's wedding day, the constitution didn't say that.  it would be a legal impossibility, since it only addresses marriages from that date forward.

Of course, the mormons and KOC could challenge all gay marriages and prove me wrong

I am shocked and saddened that 8 passed.  As woof referenced, Obama hurt it, since many more African Americans voted in this election, and exit polls showed that they were in favor of it 70-30.  Huge margin

Actually, it says "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." 

I see what you're asking.  So when a gay couple applies for benefits, the authority says "I don't recognize your marriage."  Legally, I have a hard time believing that will happen, since the US Const. prohibits ex post facto laws.  Perhaps proof of marriage date between "X" and 11/4/08 will be required, who knows.

ANother problem, if they remain valid, we have yet another equal protection issue.  Treating similarly situated people differently and denying one class the right to marry the same sex (marriage is a right under the Cal Const.)  So it gets challenged, a court is asked to decide, what does it say?  To equalize treatment all gay marriages invalidated? 

I like to think I am right, but a quick google search reveals that scholars much more intelligent than I are having a difficult time with this one.......