[NonValueAdded]

Just out of curiosity for you constitutional scholars, how can one constitutional clause invalidate the other? I mean, I can see two clauses being in conflict - such is the case here - but assuming they properly made it into the constitution from its genesis or via amendment, don't they have equal weight?

The people of California amended their constitution in full knowledge of the equal protection clause contained therein. Shouldn't this be a case where the specificity of the marriage clause supersedes the more general equal protection clause?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I think the legal reasoning is flawed, the courts can strike down an initiative if it violates the Constitution, or basically make it null and void. Once that was done Prop 22 had no binding affect on Schwarzenegger since Prop 22 is no longer law. Schwarzenegger could have refused to allow same sex marriage and the courts would be incapable of forcing his compliance. But after the court ruling there is nothing in law preventing same sex marriage. The courts could then have forced county clerks to accept marriage applications from anyone not forbidden to be married.

I think the Court ruling was wrong, but bad legal reasoning on the part of the court does not justify bad legal reasoning trying to reverse that decision. The Constitution can still be revised and if the Court had any concern for its proper role it would have left same sex marriage illegal until the issue could be clarified by constitutional amendment.

[Ol' Sparky]

Here is part of the complete headline: "Like Romney, Schwarzenegger Shirked Obligation To Uphold The Law"

When on earth are the Sean Hannitys of the world and the fools that have supported both Romney and Schwarzenegger going to realize such RINOs are liars that will betray conservatives as soon as it is convenient for them?