While we need to fight having discrimination added to the California constitution, the court decision in favor of equality including the name marriage and making sexual orientation a suspect classification that if the amendment passes the court decision would still stand but need to be interpreted differently. That is , since it determined that the State could not discriminate in calling the institutions “marriage” amd “Domestic partnerships”, woudl the amendment if it passes, force the State to only recognize Domestic Partnerships for all couple leaving Marriage only a religious institution. I need to re-read the court’s decision, but it seems that the wording left it open to State recognized marriage for all or marriage for none and went with marriage for all for the sake of simplicity.

The amendment won’t change the courts ruling only limit marriage to a man and a woman so I was just wondering…

To amend the constitution it requires signatures of 8% of the last gubernatorial voters and a majority vote. But to REVISE the constitution it requires another process altogether.

There is some argument that removing the restrictions that all persons are equal under the law is not an amendment but is rather a revision. I don’t know if that argument will be heard or considered.

Yes, it’s kind of nuts. Living most of my life in California I was constantly amazed at the kind of stuff that we were constantly asked to vote on. I’m with Patt Morrison on this one.

That seems really weird … It seems like most other states set the bar to amend the constitution higher, either by some sort of supermajority (60%, 2/3rds, etc.) or use some method of allowing a cooling-off and consideration period, like requiring votes for two consecutive years.

Then again, California often seems to be different, sometimes in a good way, sometimes bad.