Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
The court case is going over which type of amendment prop-8 was and thus was the method used to pass it valid.
Prop 8 was introduced as an amendment: it added language to the California state constitution. Amendments require only a simple majority vote to pass.
The other type of constitutional change is a revision: striking language or significantly changing the language in the state constitution. A revision requires a 2/3 majority vote to pass.
Because the California state constitution already has an equal protection clause (the clause which the California Supreme Court used to declare gay marriage legal), the addition of Prop 8 to the constitution would seem to place it at contradiction with itself.
What the opponents are arguing is that for Prop 8 to be valid it would have to be a revision: striking the language in the equal protection clause and adding the language that the banners of gay marriage want.
Convincing 2/3 of Californians to strike the equal protection clause from their constitution is a much more daunting task than getting 50% of them to say, ick, we don't like gay marriage. Ban it please.
So let me get this straight: slashdotters don't RTFA, instead they Google every word in the summary hoping they can figure it out that way?