That's really messin' with people's heads…and their pocketbooks. Big time.

With a line that powerful, who needs a gun to commit a hold-up, I ask?

In any event, this is an interesting argument, although I stick by my assertion that the wording of Prop. 8 makes it unlikely to succeed. I think it's much more likely that the court will just say prop. 8 renders equal protection a nullity and also affects due process and is thus a revision that is completely invalid. That said, I also wouldn't mind being wrong and watching the conservatives in California freak out when their new "domestic partnership" licenses don't contain the words "marriage" or "spouse" considering they freaked out when "Pary A" and "Party B" were temporarily used in place of "Husband" and "Wife" on the marriage licenses. As I said, it would be sweet irony to have the Court force the government to stop recognizing straight marriages because of Prop. 8.

How much of that money was actually spent on advertising…how much is left over…and what will that money be used for, if it was not all spent?

Or, dos the Mormon Church get to keep it as a matter of principal and the 'spoils' of war, as it were?

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co.....855223.pdf

A pity, however, that these simple-minded folks cannot see any connection between their beliefs and horrendous actions and their own present plight.

Guess they will have to just keep doing it, until they get it!

There's also a backdoor possibility that one of the minority justices will swing over. This issue isn't quite the same as same-sex marriage per se. Even though those justices voted against recognizing same-sex marriage as a fundamental right and sexual orientation as a suspect class, it's possible they will honor the precedent. Their votes in In re Marriage Cases are not necessarily indicitive of whether they would hold that removing a fundamental right from a suspect class is a revision or not. Like I said, it's a backdoor possibility; since the case is only 6 months old, it's not likely the justices in the minority will give much weight to it as precedent.

That said, I'm cautiously optimistic that the court will hold that an exception to equal protection is a revision rather than an amendment. The case law is very meager in this area, but such a decision, although not strongly supported by the case law, is not inconsistent with the case law either. That being the case, common sense will likely prevail: if a simple majority can change the constitution to make an exception to equal protection, then equal protection is a literal nullity. I don't think the Court can overlook that.

From page 119 (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/op.....147999.PDF):

"A court generally makes that determination by considering whether extending the benefit equally to both classes, or instead withholding it equally, would be most consistent with the likely intent of the Legislature, had that body recognized that unequal treatment was constitutionally impermissible."

If Proposition 8 is ruled valid, the court has no choice but to invalidate all marriages since Prop 8 denies extending it to same-sex couples and the equal protection clause requires equality.