The argument I'd like to see attempted is that marriage is recognized as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause, so restrictive classifications require strict scrutiny - and unlike some other states, California already recognized single-sex marriage, so they can't say that the fundamental right applies only to mixed marriage.
That's actually exactly what the court ruled when they overturned Prop 22 and gave us our marriage rights and is the basis of one of the arguments being put forward by the plaintiffs. In order for Prop 8 to go into effect it would have to change at least 2 parts of the state constitution: 1) Alter our (exceptionally strong) equal protection clause to exclude sexual orientation as a suspect class and thus no longer subject anti-gay laws to strict scrutiny. 2) Restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. It's against the law to change two or more parts of the constitution with a single ballot initiative. That would require either a constitutional convention or two separate amendments.
no subject
That's actually exactly what the court ruled when they overturned Prop 22 and gave us our marriage rights and is the basis of one of the arguments being put forward by the plaintiffs. In order for Prop 8 to go into effect it would have to change at least 2 parts of the state constitution: 1) Alter our (exceptionally strong) equal protection clause to exclude sexual orientation as a suspect class and thus no longer subject anti-gay laws to strict scrutiny. 2) Restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. It's against the law to change two or more parts of the constitution with a single ballot initiative. That would require either a constitutional convention or two separate amendments.