Cowardly "No on Prop. 8" supporters in California?

[timfogarty]

And besides--why is it okay for liberal organizations to throw their money behind a cause, but when a conservative organization like the Mormon church does it, people are yelling and screaming and marching in the streets? 

for one, in exchange for their tax exempt status, churches aren't suppose to make political endorsements.   let them pay property and corporate taxes, just as both liberal and conservative political organizations do, then they can endorse who/what ever they want.

and if you had been following this prior to the election, you probably would have heard that the Mormon church was threatening businesses who donated to the No on 8 campaign with boycotts.  and even worse, threatening members with expulsion.

[Buffgeek]

Timfogarty this is kind of off topic, but what do you think about marriage being a contractual agreement?

For instance is one spouse cheats on the other then by law that should be a breach of contract?

[Straw Man]

The latest legal strategy

http://www.zimbio.com/Gloria+Allred/articles/4/Gloria+Allred+statement+Prop+8+lawsuit

Last night, opponents sought to reverse that decision with Proposition 8 in which they once again sought to restrict legal marriage to a man and a woman. That Proposition appears to have passed by a narrow margin.

As a result, today we will file a writ with the California Supreme Court on behalf of Robin Tyler and her spouse, Diane Olson, challenging its constitutionality on several grounds. In our case in May, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Equal protection clause in our California Constitution protects the rights of lesbians and gays to marry the person of their choice and the court, for the first time, recognized homosexuality as a "suspect classification" under the equal protection clause of our state constitution, thereby requiring a strict scrutiny test which test was not and cannot be met (the court so held) in marriages limited to a man and a woman. Prop 8, if it passes, conflicts with the equal protection clause. If marriage is now limited to straight couples and excludes gay couples then it is inconsistent and in conflict with the equal protection clause. We will argue to the court that Prop 8 is a disguised revision to the constitution which cannot be imposed by the ordinary amendment process, which only requires a simple majority. We believe that then the court must hold that California may not issue marriage licenses to non-gay couples because if it does it would be violating the equal protection clause as straight couples would have more rights by being allowed to marry than gay couples.

If Prop 8 had said that the California constitution was amended to limit marriage to people of the same race only, would that be constitutional under our state constitution? Of course not as it would violate the equal protection clause and the seminal case of Perez v. Sharp which the Supreme court decided sixty years ago.

We will also argue that Prop 8 improperly revises the Supreme Court’s recent opinion defining the constitutional fundamental right of marriage The state constitution provides that revisions to the constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a state constitutional convention, and a proposition requiring only 50% is not available to the electorate to accomplish the revision to our equal protection clause.

Lastly, the constitutional requirement of separation of powers, we will argue, does not permit the use of the Proposition format to remove and /or circumvent the judiciary in determining the interpretation of what is or is not a fundamental liberty right and who is and who is not protected by the equal protection clause.

[timfogarty]

Timfogarty this is kind of off topic, but what do you think about marriage being a contractual agreement?

For instance is one spouse cheats on the other then by law that should be a breach of contract?

of course it is a contractual agreement.  and cheating is grounds for divorce, a way to end that agreement.  civil contracts are suppose to be difficult but not impossible to end.

the purpose of civil marriage is to say that you two are responsible for each other, and in exchange society will give you certain benefits.   if cheating was a way to automatically break the contract, then as soon as times got tough (financial, health, etc) then you'd have an easy way out of the contract.  instead you have to go to court to end it.

[Cap]

Timfogarty this is kind of off topic, but what do you think about marriage being a contractual agreement?

For instance is one spouse cheats on the other then by law that should be a breach of contract?

You think I can get a fidelity clause in my prenup?  What about a paternity clause?   

[Al Doggity]

You think I can get a fidelity clause in my prenup?  What about a paternity clause?   

Outside of community property states these things aren't that unusual. Women have sued and won against spouses for "emotional abandonment."

[timfogarty]

[Soul Crusher]

for one, in exchange for their tax exempt status, churches aren't suppose to make political endorsements.   let them pay property and corporate taxes, just as both liberal and conservative political organizations do, then they can endorse who/what ever they want.

and if you had been following this prior to the election, you probably would have heard that the Mormon church was threatening businesses who donated to the No on 8 campaign with boycotts.  and even worse, threatening members with expulsion.

I guess you would include in that Obama's church run by Rev. Wright??  Correct??

[timfogarty]

I guess you would include in that Obama's church run by Rev. Wright??  Correct??

I have no problem with taxing any and all churches, especially property and capital gains.

[MCWAY]

for one, in exchange for their tax exempt status, churches aren't suppose to make political endorsements.   let them pay property and corporate taxes, just as both liberal and conservative political organizations do, then they can endorse who/what ever they want.

and if you had been following this prior to the election, you probably would have heard that the Mormon church was threatening businesses who donated to the No on 8 campaign with boycotts.  and even worse, threatening members with expulsion.

Churches have every right to vote on ISSUES, without penalty. Liberal groups have been crying about yanking tax-exempt status, everytime they lose on things like marriage amendments. Yet, I don't see groups like the ACLU, filing suits against churches when Democrat/liberal candidates have them as guests and they do what I call the "Praise the Lord and vote for me" routine.

Every presidental election, the Democratic nominee(s) will head to a black church. You can count on it. Yet, we hear none of this blubbering when that happens. It doesn't bother me one way or the other.

[MCWAY]

The latest legal strategy

http://www.zimbio.com/Gloria+Allred/articles/4/Gloria+Allred+statement+Prop+8+lawsuit

Last night, opponents sought to reverse that decision with Proposition 8 in which they once again sought to restrict legal marriage to a man and a woman. That Proposition appears to have passed by a narrow margin.

As a result, today we will file a writ with the California Supreme Court on behalf of Robin Tyler and her spouse, Diane Olson, challenging its constitutionality on several grounds. In our case in May, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Equal protection clause in our California Constitution protects the rights of lesbians and gays to marry the person of their choice and the court, for the first time, recognized homosexuality as a "suspect classification" under the equal protection clause of our state constitution, thereby requiring a strict scrutiny test which test was not and cannot be met (the court so held) in marriages limited to a man and a woman. Prop 8, if it passes, conflicts with the equal protection clause. If marriage is now limited to straight couples and excludes gay couples then it is inconsistent and in conflict with the equal protection clause. We will argue to the court that Prop 8 is a disguised revision to the constitution which cannot be imposed by the ordinary amendment process, which only requires a simple majority. We believe that then the court must hold that California may not issue marriage licenses to non-gay couples because if it does it would be violating the equal protection clause as straight couples would have more rights by being allowed to marry than gay couples.

If Prop 8 had said that the California constitution was amended to limit marriage to people of the same race only, would that be constitutional under our state constitution? Of course not as it would violate the equal protection clause and the seminal case of Perez v. Sharp which the Supreme court decided sixty years ago.

We will also argue that Prop 8 improperly revises the Supreme Court’s recent opinion defining the constitutional fundamental right of marriage The state constitution provides that revisions to the constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a state constitutional convention, and a proposition requiring only 50% is not available to the electorate to accomplish the revision to our equal protection clause.

Lastly, the constitutional requirement of separation of powers, we will argue, does not permit the use of the Proposition format to remove and /or circumvent the judiciary in determining the interpretation of what is or is not a fundamental liberty right and who is and who is not protected by the equal protection clause.

They tried that argument, six months ago, and the CA court dismissed it.

If this amendment were so “unconstitutional”, the CA court should have taken care of this BEFORE it ever got to the ballot. It didn’t and neither did the state Attorney General. Instead, they let it go. The AG changed the title of Prop. 8; the Court dismissed a lawsuit to keep Prop. 8.

The bottom line is that the state AG, the CA court, and others, stacked the deck to get Prop. 8 voted down. But, that plan BACKFIRED. To suggest that Prop. 8 is, all of a sudden, unconstitutional, when it wasn’t just six months ago, is ridiculous.

The court made its ruling in May, based on how the state Constitution read at that time. Furthermore, the amendment was placed on the ballot before the court made its ruling, anyway. So, regardless of how the court ruled on Prop. 22 (the previous marriage law from 2000), Prop. 8 was going before the voters.

Now, the constitution reads that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The state court must abide by the state constitution. And if Prop. 8 didn't clash with the constitution six months ago, it doesn't clash with it now.

[MCWAY]

Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up

The governor expresses hope that Proposition 8 would be overturned as protesters continued to march outside churches across California.

By Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza
November 10, 2008

Reporting from Sacramento and Lake Forest -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already wed would not see their marriages nullified by the initiative.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview Sunday on CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."


complete article at LA Times

Again, why aren’t all these protestors, marching up to Arnold’s doorstep and acting a fool? Didn’t he TWICE vetoed gay “marriage” bills, that would have legalized it, without the courts getting involved at all?

Of course, Arnold also said that he’d respect the will of the people. He needs to make up his mind. Does he respect the will of the people, or the courts? He keeps flip-flopping on this issue. I think that, like the court and the AG, he's trying to play both sides and look clean in the process.

Loco was right. If Prop. 8 had failed to pass, the first words coming from the Governator's mouth (and that from Prop. 8 opponents) is that the people had their say and they voted to be "progressive" and "forward-thinking".

Again, this vote was slanted for Prop. 8 to fail. They didn't think that Prop. 8 would pass, if homos had marriage licenses in hand and Prop. 8 was titled "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry". That backfired, big time.

[Straw Man]

They tried that argument, six months ago, and the CA court dismissed it.

If this amendment were so “unconstitutional”, the CA court should have taken care of this BEFORE it ever got to the ballot. It didn’t and neither did the state Attorney General. Instead, they let it go. The AG changed the title of Prop. 8; the Court dismissed a lawsuit to keep Prop. 8.

The bottom line is that the state AG, the CA court, and others, stacked the deck to get Prop. 8 voted down. But, that plan BACKFIRED. To suggest that Prop. 8 is, all of a sudden, unconstitutional, when it wasn’t just six months ago, is ridiculous.

The court made its ruling in May, based on how the state Constitution read at that time. Furthermore, the amendment was placed on the ballot before the court made its ruling, anyway. So, regardless of how the court ruled on Prop. 22 (the previous marriage law from 2000), Prop. 8 was going before the voters.

Now, the constitution reads that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The state court must abide by the state constitution. And if Prop. 8 didn't clash with the constitution six months ago, it doesn't clash with it now.

The Decision by the CA Supreme Court in May determined that Prop 22 which was part of the civil code (now the CA Family Code) was unconstituional because it violated the Equal Protection clause of the constitution.

The argument being made now is that Prop 8 is a "de facto" revision to the constitution rather than an ammendment.   This seems like a potentially valid argument because Prop 8 does not merely "add" to the constitution but it is really a back door way at re-writing the constition and that requires (from what I've read) a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a state constitutional convention.

The decision by the court in May on Prop 22 (again, part of the family code) is what makes Prop 8 (so the argument goes) a revision rather than an ammendment.

[MCWAY]

The Decision by the CA Supreme Court in May determined that Prop 22 which was part of the civil code (now the CA Family Code) was unconstituional because it violated the Equal Protection clause of the constitution.

The argument being made now is that Prop 8 is a "de facto" revision to the constitution rather than an ammendment.   This seems like a potentially valid argument because Prop 8 does not merely "add" to the constitution but it is really a back door way at re-writing the constition and that requires (from what I've read) a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a state constitutional convention.

The decision by the court in May on Prop 22 (again, part of the family code) is what makes Prop 8 (so the argument goes) a revision rather than an ammendment.

This wasn't a "back door" way of re-writing anything. This amendment was submitted BEFORE the court made its ruling on Prop. 22. And the court had MONTHS to look this over. If there were any problems, it should have been addressed then.

All attempts to keep Prop. 8 off the ballot were DISMISSED by the state court and by the attorney general, which implies that it's legit. But the actions of the court and the AG gives the sense that, since they could find no grounds to keep it off the ballot, the next best thing they could do is try to sway the outcome of the vote.

They did that by letting gay couples get marriage licenses, before the results of the vote came, and allowing the AG to change the title of Prop. 8.

Despite that, and all the negative press, Prop. 8 passed. And now, the court has to decide whether the estimated 18,000 licenses to gay couples are valid or not.

There's no way the court couldn't have known the potential mess that would be, should Prop. 8 get the voters' nod. It sounds to me as if they underestimated the electorate and got embarrased.

Plus, there's the matter of the federal Supreme Court's effective ruling regarding Baker v. Nelson. It dismissed a lawsuit by a gay couple, trying to reverse the Minnesota state court's ruling that 1M-1W marriage laws DO NOT violate the 14th amendment. Their suit was dismissed on its merits, which means the federal court sided with the Minnesota court. And that, I believe, is binding on all lower courts.

In short, states have the right to define marriage as a 1M-1W union. And the CA voters did just that.

[Straw Man]

This wasn't a "back door" way of re-writing anything. This amendment was submitted BEFORE the court made its ruling on Prop. 22. And the court had MONTHS to look this over. If there were any problems, it should have been addressed then.

All attempts to keep Prop. 8 off the ballot were DISMISSED by the state court and by the attorney general, which implies that it's legit. But the actions of the court and the AG gives the sense that, since they could find no grounds to keep it off the ballot, the next best thing they could do is try to sway the outcome of the vote.

They did that by letting gay couples get marriage licenses, before the results of the vote came, and allowing the AG to change the title of Prop. 8.

Despite that, and all the negative press, Prop. 8 passed. And now, the court has to decide whether the estimated 18,000 licenses to gay couples are valid or not.

There's no way the court couldn't have known the potential mess that would be, should Prop. 8 get the voters' nod. It sounds to me as if they underestimated the electorate and got embarrased.

Plus, there's the matter of the federal Supreme Court's effective ruling regarding Baker v. Nelson. It dismissed a lawsuit by a gay couple, trying to reverse the Minnesota state court's ruling that 1M-1W marriage laws DO NOT violate the 14th amendment. Their suit was dismissed on its merits, which means the federal court sided with the Minnesota court. And that, I believe, is binding on all lower courts.

In short, states have the right to define marriage as a 1M-1W union. And the CA voters did just that.

The initiative process which resulted in Prop 8 began before the ruling in May 2008 but it didn't even get enough signatures to qualify until June of 2008.
Failed attempts to keep it off the ballot will be irrelevent if this current challenge makes it to the CA Supreme Court and only that decision will matter.

Right now we have an "ammendment" to the constitution which contradicts a ruling about a part of the document itself and that's a problem.

Either the constitution must be revised or the ammendment is not valid (IMO)

 

[Dos Equis]

This wasn't a "back door" way of re-writing anything. This amendment was submitted BEFORE the court made its ruling on Prop. 22. And the court had MONTHS to look this over. If there were any problems, it should have been addressed then.

All attempts to keep Prop. 8 off the ballot were DISMISSED by the state court and by the attorney general, which implies that it's legit. But the actions of the court and the AG gives the sense that, since they could find no grounds to keep it off the ballot, the next best thing they could do is try to sway the outcome of the vote.

They did that by letting gay couples get marriage licenses, before the results of the vote came, and allowing the AG to change the title of Prop. 8.

Despite that, and all the negative press, Prop. 8 passed. And now, the court has to decide whether the estimated 18,000 licenses to gay couples are valid or not.

There's no way the court couldn't have known the potential mess that would be, should Prop. 8 get the voters' nod. It sounds to me as if they underestimated the electorate and got embarrased.

Plus, there's the matter of the federal Supreme Court's effective ruling regarding Baker v. Nelson. It dismissed a lawsuit by a gay couple, trying to reverse the Minnesota state court's ruling that 1M-1W marriage laws DO NOT violate the 14th amendment. Their suit was dismissed on its merits, which means the federal court sided with the Minnesota court. And that, I believe, is binding on all lower courts.

In short, states have the right to define marriage as a 1M-1W union. And the CA voters did just that.

 I will be shocked if a handful of judges in California do not find some way to invalidate the people's vote, again.  They can't rely on the U.S. Constitution (no court has), but they can probably manufacture some argument based on whatever their state constitution says to get around what millions of California have now decided twice. 

I suspect that the reasons they didn't stay the enforcement of their ruling a few months ago were (1) they wanted it to influence the outcome of the vote and (2) even if the vote was "Yes" on prop 8, they could then say the vote is contrary some newly created constitutional right that requires a two-thirds majority vote. 

We'll probably see some contorted ruling in a few months.     

[Straw Man]

I will be shocked if a handful of judges in California do not find some way to invalidate the people's vote, again.  They can't rely on the U.S. Constitution (no court has), but they can probably manufacture some argument based on whatever their state constitution says to get around what millions of California have now decided twice. 

I suspect that the reasons they didn't stay the enforcement of their ruling a few months ago were (1) they wanted it to influence the outcome of the vote and (2) even if the vote was "Yes" on prop 8, they could then say the vote is contrary some newly created constitutional right that requires a two-thirds majority vote. 

We'll probably see some contorted ruling in a few months.     

This is Cut and Paste from an article in Salon and the whole article is worth reading:  http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/22/wittes/


That a law invalidated by a court is supported by a large majority is not an argument supporting the conclusion that the court's decision was wrong.   Central to our system of government is the premise that there are laws which even the largest majorities are prohibited from enacting because such laws violate the constitutional rights of minorities. Thus, the percentage of people who support the law in question, and how lengthy and painstaking the process was that led to the law's enactment, is totally irrelevant in assessing the propriety of a court decision striking down that law on constitutional grounds.

Contrary to Wittes' extremely confused argument, a court striking down a law supported by large majorities is not antithetical to our system of government. Such a judicial act is central to our system of government. That's because, strictly speaking, the U.S. is not a "democracy" as much as it a "constitutional republic," precisely because constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities. This is all just seventh-grade civics, something that the Brookings scholar and those condemning the California court's decision on similar grounds seem to have forgotten.

The duty -- the central obligation -- of judges faithfully applying the law and fulfilling their core duties is to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, without regard to what percentage of the population supports that law, and without regard to whether it would be "better" in some political sense if democratic majorities some day got around to changing their minds about it. It's perfectly appropriate for, say, marriage equality advocates or political candidates to take into account whether it would be preferable, in some political or strategic sense, to achieve gay marriage incrementally or legislatively, only once there is majority support for it. But that is a completely inappropriate factor for a judge to consider, because the judge's sole consideration is whether the law is consistent with Constitutional protections.

Alexander Hamilton, in defining the core function of federal judges in Federalist 78, explained this as clearly as it could be explained (though apparently not clearly enough for Wittes):

wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

When -- to use Hamilton's formulation -- judges "disregard" a "particular statute" in favor of constitutional guarantees, they aren't undermining our system of government. They're upholding it. The principal purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit the enactment of rights-abridging laws which, by definition (given that they are being democratically enacted), are supported by majorities. Anyone who argues that a court is acting improperly solely by virtue of the fact that it is striking down a popular law is someone who doesn't believe in the American system of government created by the Founders.

[Dos Equis]

This is Cut and Paste from an article in Salon and the whole article is worth reading:  http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/22/wittes/


That a law invalidated by a court is supported by a large majority is not an argument supporting the conclusion that the court's decision was wrong.   Central to our system of government is the premise that there are laws which even the largest majorities are prohibited from enacting because such laws violate the constitutional rights of minorities. Thus, the percentage of people who support the law in question, and how lengthy and painstaking the process was that led to the law's enactment, is totally irrelevant in assessing the propriety of a court decision striking down that law on constitutional grounds.

Contrary to Wittes' extremely confused argument, a court striking down a law supported by large majorities is not antithetical to our system of government. Such a judicial act is central to our system of government. That's because, strictly speaking, the U.S. is not a "democracy" as much as it a "constitutional republic," precisely because constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities. This is all just seventh-grade civics, something that the Brookings scholar and those condemning the California court's decision on similar grounds seem to have forgotten.

The duty -- the central obligation -- of judges faithfully applying the law and fulfilling their core duties is to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, without regard to what percentage of the population supports that law, and without regard to whether it would be "better" in some political sense if democratic majorities some day got around to changing their minds about it. It's perfectly appropriate for, say, marriage equality advocates or political candidates to take into account whether it would be preferable, in some political or strategic sense, to achieve gay marriage incrementally or legislatively, only once there is majority support for it. But that is a completely inappropriate factor for a judge to consider, because the judge's sole consideration is whether the law is consistent with Constitutional protections.

Alexander Hamilton, in defining the core function of federal judges in Federalist 78, explained this as clearly as it could be explained (though apparently not clearly enough for Wittes):

wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

When -- to use Hamilton's formulation -- judges "disregard" a "particular statute" in favor of constitutional guarantees, they aren't undermining our system of government. They're upholding it. The principal purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit the enactment of rights-abridging laws which, by definition (given that they are being democratically enacted), are supported by majorities. Anyone who argues that a court is acting improperly solely by virtue of the fact that it is striking down a popular law is someone who doesn't believe in the American system of government created by the Founders.

I understand the role of the courts, but at the end of the day everything is subject to popular vote.  Sometimes it requires simple majority, sometimes it requires a super majority.  Regardless, it still comes to down to a vote.

[Straw Man]

I understand the role of the courts, but at the end of the day everything is subject to popular vote.  Sometimes it requires simple majority, sometimes it requires a super majority.  Regardless, it still comes to down to a vote.

right, so you understand that a majority group cannot vote away the rights of a minorty group

it is still just a vote and it will come down to the vote of some judges on the Supreme Court

which is the way it's supposed to work

[Dos Equis]

right, so you understand that a majority group cannot vote away the rights of a minorty group

it is still just a vote and it will come down to the vote of some judges on the Supreme Court

which is the way it's supposed to work

Yes they can.  We just make it hard for a simple majority to take away rights guaranteed by the constitution.  Those rights can be taken away by changing the constitution and the constitution can be only be changed by a vote.

The legislature passes the law, the president signs, vetoes, or lets become without his signature, and the courts interpret the law.  If enough people disagree with the court's interpretation, we can vote to change the law.  That's the way it's supposed to work.   

[Straw Man]

Yes they can.  We just make it hard for a simple majority to take away rights guaranteed by the constitution.  Those rights can be taken away by changing the constitution and the constitution can be only be changed by a vote.

The legislature passes the law, the president signs, vetoes, or lets become without his signature, and the courts interpret the law.  If enough people disagree with the court's interpretation, we can vote to change the law.  That's the way it's supposed to work.   

a simple majority of voters does not get to change the constitution

that's the point

the CA Supreme Court judged the law (Prop 22 which was part of the civil code) unconstitutional and gave the judgmement that the state constitution created and protected the right of gay people to marry

A majority of voters cannot take away the rights of minority

if you want to change the constitution the argument (and I don't know if this is accurate or complete) is that it requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a constitutional convention (whatever that is, I assume it involves prostitutes)

Seriously, the point is that a simple majority vote of the electorate is not even an option as a way to ALTER the constitution which is what you would have to do given the decision in May 2008

[timfogarty]

if you want to change the constitution the argument (and I don't know if this is accurate or complete) is that it requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a constitutional convention

yes, 2/3 vote of the legislature, and then 2/3 vote of the people.    Neither is politically feasible at this time.

[Dos Equis]

a simple majority of voters does not get to change the constitution

that's the point

the supreme courts judged the law (Prop 22 which was part of the civil code) unconstitutional and gave the judgmement that the state constitution created and protected the right of gay people to marry

A majority of voters cannot take away the rights of minority

if you want to change the constitution the argument (and I don't know if this is accurate or complete) is that it requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a constitutional convention (whatever that is, I assume it involves prostitutes)

Seriously, the point is that a simple majority vote of the electorate is not even an option as a way to ALTER the constitution which is what you would have to do given the decision in May 2008

Not true.  A simple majority cannot change the U.S. Constitution.  A super majority is required.  Two thirds in the House and Senate and Two Thirds of the states.  Still, this is done by vote.  

State constitutions can be changed based on whatever the state constitution says.  Some require super majority for some issues, some don't.  

[Straw Man]

Not true.  A simple majority cannot change the U.S. Constitution.  A super majority is required.  Two thirds in the House and Senate and Two Thirds of the states.  Still, this is done by vote.  

State constitutions can be changed based on whatever the state constitution says.  Some require super majority for some issues, some don't.  

please explain what you mean by "change"

that is the heart of the matter

the interpretation of the CA Constitution is that gay people have the right to get married

Prop 8 contradicts that interpretation

you seem to understand the Prop 8 seeks to alter the constitution

[Dos Equis]

please explain what you mean by "change"

that is the heart of the matter

the interpretation of the CA Constitution is that gay people have the right to get married

Prop 8 contradicts that interpretation

you seem to understand the Prop 8 seeks to alter the constitution

Change means change.  Amend, remove, alter, whatever you want to call it. 

Of course prop 8 alters the constitution.  That's precisely what the proposition says.

I'm not sure you understand that state and federal constitutions can be changed (altered, whatever) by popular vote (both simple majority and super majority depending on the issue and constitution involved).