The section I quoted and proposition 8 are mutually exclusive. Thus passing 8 would completely revise that section.The addition of a new section in and of itself would not rise to the level of revision under the Amador and McFadden standards. Proposition 8 does not explicitly alter any other section of the California Constitution.
The length of proposal is irrelevant. Suppose I added the amendment "the police can search your house whenever they like". It is only 9 words, but would you agree that is a major revision to the constitution?The proposition is extremely brief--a mere 14 words of statutory language. Per the Amador and McFadden standards, the brevity of the initiative suggests the initiative is indeed the amendment it purports to be, rather than the revision some claim it to be.
Using spirit of the law arguments, obviously prop 8 discriminates against homosexuals. However, even using the strictest technical definition, prop 8 is gender biased. Prop 8 would prevent a man from marrying a man. Since woman have the privilege of marrying men, it violates the equality cause. Simultaneously, men are allowed to marry women, while women are not. Either way, it doesn't pass.I do not see the contention of conflict with Article I §7(b) as being persuasive, because the statutory language of Proposition 8 does not apply unequally on the basis of race, ethnicity, nor even sexual orientation.
The relevancy is that it eliminates potential grounds by which the statutory language may be considered revisory. The scope argument you raise with your example I addressed further in my post.
The gender equality argument is tortured reasoning at best. Further, that argument hardly has at this juncture judicial standing, given that California law SB777--the "gender identity" law--is being constitutionally challenged even as we speak.
Was prop 8 an amendment or a revision? That is one of many very complicated legal issues including equal protection.
CA supreme court is a right leaning court, but they are also strict constructionists.
We'll know in 48 hrs.
It was very clear that they will not be annulling the 18,000 gay marriages legally performed last year.
The right thing many not be the legal thing to do. They are smart and fair justices.