The section of the CA Constitution that the author references refers to statutory law. The CA Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA Constitution. IANAL, but as I understand it, statutory law is subordinate to constitutional law. Since Prop 8 is not a statute but a constitutional amendment, the author’s premise is incorrect.
Right, and didn't the SCOCA also rule Prop 8 unconstitutional (state)? Then the proponents of Prop 8 went to the feds, right? (Unlike some here suppose, I was personally involved in the fight to get Prop 8 passed and STILL have a bumper sticker on my car saying to vote for Prop 8. My contention, however, is you don't go to the feds for a problem that is not a U.S. Constitution problem but a local/state problem, or you open Pandora's box.)
The people of CA need to hash this thing out one way or the other, and there also needs to be judges with backbone (like Scalia) who ignore the (dicta?) in the SCOTUS decision that essentially personally demeans proponents of protecting traditional marriage.
The sodomite agenda is ultimately to do away with the Bible and its values which includes traditional, Biblically defined marriage. (Marriage was created and defined by God, right? Another sad example of man futility trying to reinvent what God created.)
Thanks for helping to keep us informed.
The author's conclusion is wrong, but not for the reason he states. Ordinarily, a decision of a federal district court, or a state trial court, is not binding precedent for other cases. It binds the parties, unless overturned on appeal, but if another case comes up between different parties, a trial-level court's decision is something the next court can consider, but it isn't bound by it. That's why the California Constitution says that the State can't ignore a state statute even if a district court judge said it was unconstitutional-- the state can, and should, defend the statute until the issue is decided by an appellate court.
This assumes that the State was not a party to the first case. If Plaintiff A sues Defendant B under California statute X, and a trial-level court (state or federal) throws the case out because it believes Statute X is unconstitutional, that decision binds no one but A and B, so the state can argue in another case that the statute is constitutional.
The Prop. 8 case is different because the state's officials were named as defendants, and the district court enjoined the Governor and Attorney General from enforcing Prop. 8. So the trial court's decision is now binding on the state because they were parties to the case, they were enjoined, and the appeal from that decision has been dismissed. So the Prop. 8 decision is not binding on anyone as precedent, but it is binding on the state because it was a party.