It's a loser.

They're trying to overthrow a constitutional amendment by arguing that the amendment is not constitutional. That would be akin to trying to negate the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery because the original Constitution explicitly defines and implicitly protects slavery.

That said, its sad that many liberals on the one hand will claim they have a mandate for Obama because he won a majority of the votes, then demand negating a constitutional amendment properly passed despite winning a majority of votes.


Me; I'm against Proposition 8--I think it was a horrible idea, and I'm sad it passed. That said, the only way to fix it is to create a new proposition that re-amends the Constitution.

Right, the California constitution itself (Article 18) makes a distinction between an "amendment" and a "revision" to the constitution. An amendment is an addition, a revision is a change to what is already there. So you cannot reverse an amendment with another amendment; by definition that would be a revision. Amendments can be done by popular vote, but revisions require 2/3 approval of the legislature before they can be voted on. If fraterseraphino didn't know that, I bet most California voters didn't know it either.

And, since the California Supreme Court said that same-sex marriage is protected by the constitution, any attempt to modify the constitution to eliminate that right would be a revision, not an amendment. Therefore it should have had a vote in the legislature first.