Quote Originally Posted by iamapatient
4 activist judges overturned the will of the people forcing prop 8 to come about and despite your ignorance of how things work in America, California ballot initiatives are passed by a simple majority, as intended, and Presidential elections are decided by the electoral college, as intended, so you're comparing apples to oranges.
I was merely trying to illustrate a point, so thanks for keeping this civil not going straight for the jugular. Now, back to your will of the people, simple majority nonsense. Considering the legal challenge thats in the works, it remains to be seen a simple majority vote is legally able to change California's constitution.

Prop 8 was not your typical "amendment" that merely tinkers with the California Constitution. It was a drastic revision that deprives a "suspect class" (gays and lesbians) of a fundamental right under equal protection. And a simple majority vote of the people is not enough to take that right away â?? especially when the purpose of equal protection is to shield minorities. While other courts have upheld marriage amendments in other states, they have different Constitutions â?? and court rulings have changed considerably in a short period of time. And unlike many states, California has explicitly found sexual orientation to be a "suspect class." If the Court overrules Prop 8, it will be a powerful affirmation for justice â?? capping what has been a powerful year of "change."
Even if voters pass a Constitutional Amendment, the courts can still decide if it was merely an "amendment" â?? or a substantive "revision." And if it was a "revision," voter approval by a simple majority is not enough â?? it also requires an okay by the state legislature (which probably wouldnâ??t happen), or a constitutional convention. Why the distinction? Because mere "amendments" tinker around the edges; "revisions" are far more fundamental changes.

And the Courts have thrown out such changes to the Constitution as "revisions" under the right circumstances [...]

Likewise, Prop 8 is a drastic "revision" (if not moreso) because it violates equal protection for a minority group.

Last May, the California Supreme Court found that depriving same-sex couples the right to marry violated equal protection â?? and that LGBT people are a "suspect class." A "suspect class" is a group that has suffered discrimination and needs protection. The central purpose behind equal protection is to protect unpopular minorities from a political majority who could take away their rights. You canâ??t simply change the Constitution by majority vote to take away the right of gay people to marry â?? because that right comes from the equal protection clause. As Herrera wrote in his brief, "without a judiciary that has the final word on equal protection, there simply is no such thing as equal protection."
BeyondChron: San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily News » Why Prop 8 Can â?? and Must â?? Be Overruled

All six challenges argue that Proposition 8 was an improper method of amending the California constitution and flouted the Supreme Court's ruling last year striking down the state's prior ban on gay marriage. Among other things, the lawsuits seek an immediate stay of the renewed gay marriage ban, a move Brown opposes because it would create further legal uncertainty for couples deciding to wed as the legal battle winds through the Supreme Court.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11006520