To make my point perfectly clear, it’s always been my understanding that the entire point of a process that changes a constitution is to, well, make changes to a constitution. Through the federal Amendment process, it’d be perfectly OK to get rid of the judicial branch, declare that all people shall wear pink on Fridays, etc.
The ONLY way that I could see the California Supreme Court reasonably overturning this state constitutional change would be to declare it in violation of the federal Constitution. Of course, that would immediately result in an appeal to the SCOTUS, but it’s the only argument that even makes sense to me. (Of course, I don’t agree with it, but at least it’s something that doesn’t come from the Twilight Zone like the argument you say they are going to push.)
I understand your frustration but my argument isn’t really from the Twilight Zone. I would expect the challenge to take the position that marriage is a basic constitutional right grounded in the U.S. Constitution perhaps in the “privacy penumbra” discovered there in Roe v. Wade. The argument will be that the California Constitution cannot take away a federally-recognized constitutional right. While we might be able to tinker with the federal constitution, state constitutions cannot deny to its citizens federal rights. I think this is part of why we fought the Civil War. So if the gays can get a federal court to rule that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the federal constitution, then it can get the California Constitution overruled.
The Constitutional Ammendment process was for two reasons: one was to keep state courts from interpreting the California Constitution to include a right which would now be specifically prohibited. The other was to keep the Assembly from doing its own mischief against any law which had less-than-constitutional status.
I don’t think the federal court is that sympathetic to the argument of the gays at this point but I do think the gays would certainly do everything they could to challenge the law, first through state courts and eventually to the federal level. The opponents of Prop 8 would then argue that a stay on enforcing the new provision could and probably would be put in place by a state court first and then a federal court. This leaves the ruling of the state court granting marriage rights in place, perhaps for years.
Don’t underestimate the creativity of people who want to overrule the will of the people, especially if a certain presidential candidate sympathetic to their cause gets elected. The Supreme Court has been amenable to a lot of Twilight Zone type of arguments over the centuries.
Passing Prop 8 is not an end but a middle point in this struggle. From here on out, the battle will be continuous. When the domestic partnership provisions were pushed on the people, the gays argued it was needed to allow them to visit their dying loved ones in the hospital. It was a sympathetic vote for many. From the time it was passed to this very year, gays have had legislation passed in every session of the Assembly to expand this right to where it is now equal in the state to marriage in all but name. They want the name. They want the argument to push full faith and credit on every state in the union. They want everything marriage has to offer except the true rewards of marriage which is becoming one with your spouse and procreation. They won’t stop until they get everything they want or destroy it for everyone if they can’t get what they want.