The equal protections clause in the California constitution is expressly based on the equal protections clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
(See SEC. 7. (a))
However, there is glaring evidence in the federal Constitution that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1, had never intended for the equal protections clause to be applied the way that pro-gay California judges have applied it to Prop. 8.
More specifically, if the equal protections clauses of the federal and California state constitutions were intended to be understood the way that California judges have applied it to Prop. 8 then there would have been no need for the states to ratify the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments to the Constitution, these amendments establishing voting protections based on specific criteria.
In fact, noting that the 19th Amendment was ratified to prohibit federal and state governments from prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex, the Supreme Court having previously decided in the case of Minor v. Happersett that the states could prohibit citizens from voting on the basis of sex regardless of 14A's equal protections clause, legal majority California voters similarly prohibited certain kinds of marriage on the basis of sex when they approved Prop. 8.
So where the equal protections clause of Sec. 1 of 14A versus the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments is concerned, what equal protections actually means is the following imo. Simply put, states can make laws which discriminate on the basis of criteria which is not expressly protected by the Constitution, as long as such laws are applied equally to everybody affected by an unprotected criterion.
Again, pro-gay activist California judges inappropriately based their application of the equal protections clauses in both federal and state constitutions on PC interpretations of these clauses imo.
Outstanding point.
Laws are written so as not to be redundant.
What I find incredible is that we have judges overturning an Amendment to the Constitution of the State of California - it’s right there in black and white, Sec. 7.5.
Where do they get the authority to do so?