Reply #40: Not in its entirety, but I know what it says. [View All]

[Unvanguard]

Neither of the elements you mention (both of which I was already aware of) change the way this works.

Suspect classification is just an element of equal protection that requires the state to meet a very high standard ("strict scrutiny") when justifying a discriminatory procedure. But amending the Constitution as Prop. 8 does takes same-sex marriage out of the realm of equal protection (or, at least, the recent court interpretation of equal protection), so that's immaterial. (Does this count as a "revision"? No: it is a specific, highly narrow exception, not a broad restriction on court authority.)

As for the right to marriage being a "fundamental right", this changes nothing, because the supporters of Prop. 8 can point out that, "fundamental" or not, marriage rights are already limited in a variety of ways. Limiting them further in response to a specific court decision hardly constitutes a massive revision in the way the California government works.

To put it simply, the grounds the California Supreme Court ruled on in In re Marriage Cases don't apply post-Prop. 8 (well, they apply in other contexts, but not to same-sex marriage). You have to make a separate argument to make the case that it is a "revision" rather than an "amendment", and none of the arguments presented are particularly strong.