Some people are in a sour mood this morning.

This had nothing to do with whether the Yes vote was or wasn't a lost cause. Up until 2 weeks ago, most thought Prop 8 would fail.

The efforts of the LDS community was what put Prop 8 over the top. It was an absoultely overwhelming effort - well financed, well coordinated and well carried-out.

The No on Prop 8 campaign was less than impressive, from what I observed. It was everything that the yes campaign wasn't. It was vitually non-existent anywhere north of Sacramento (admittedly a very very small percent of the overall population). They did nothing effective to win the swing vote, imo, whereas that was the focus of the Yes campaign.

I'm genuinely curious ... on what grounds? Unless they fight the mechanics of the initiative process itself, on what basis do they have standing to challenge an amendment? Can one part of the CA Constitution invalidate another part?

Irony alert.

Like SU says, enlighten us. Please.

I thought LAUte was supposed to be funny. Thats all I heard when he came over to this board. Raving reviews from the regulars on UFN. I got nothin so far.

Has the Prop 8 campaign dulled his sense of humor? Will it return now that the election is over? I hope so.

"Come on, you're a clown fish. Say something funny".

I'm curious, too. The appeal was mentioned briefly on KGO (biggest SF radio station) this morning. I'll follow this and post later when the substance of the appeal is made public.

I may not understand this very well, but how does one challenge the constitutionality of an amendment? The only challenges of which I'm aware, are whether you collected sufficient signatures or whether explanations were clear enough. I suppose going to a friendly judge will hold it up, but how could one otherwise successfully challenge a constitutional amendment, as opposed to a statute, which process I understand.

The AP report on the Prop 8 election
 

Pretty objective, I think:
______________________

LOS ANGELES – Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard, and putting in doubt as many as 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted since a court ruling made them legal this year.

The gay-rights movement had a rough election elsewhere as well Tuesday. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

But California, the nation's most populous state, had been the big prize. Spending for and against Proposition 8 reached $74 million, the most expensive social-issues campaign in U.S. history and the most expensive campaign this year outside the race for the White House. Activists on both sides of the issue saw the measure as critical to building momentum for their causes.

"People believe in the institution of marriage," Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign said after declaring victory early Wednesday. "It's one institution that crosses ethnic divides, that crosses partisan divides. ... People have stood up because they care about marriage and they care a great deal."

With almost all precincts reporting, election returns showed the measure winning with 52 percent. Some provisional and absentee ballots remained to be tallied, but based on trends and the locations of the votes still outstanding, the margin of support in favor of the initiative was secure.

Exit polls for The Associated Press found that Proposition 8 received critical support from black voters who flocked to the polls to support Barack Obama for president. About seven in 10 blacks voted in favor of the ban, while Latinos also supported it and whites were split.

Californians overwhelmingly passed a same-sex marriage ban in 2000, but gay-rights supporters had hoped public opinion on the issue had shifted enough for this year's measure to be rejected.

"We pick ourselves up and trudge on," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "There has been enormous movement in favor of full equality in eight short years. That is the direction this is heading, and if it's not today or it's not tomorrow, it will be soon."

The constitutional amendment limits marriage to heterosexual couples, nullifying the California Supreme Court decision that had made same-sex marriages legal in the state since June.

Similar bans had prevailed in 27 states before Tuesday's elections, but none were in California's situation — with about 18,000 gay couples already married. The state attorney general, Jerry Brown, has said those marriages will remain valid, although legal challenges are possible.

Legal Challenge
 

Seems to me it would have to be a challenge based on the U.S. Constitution, unless opponents want to try to invalidate the election due to irregularities of some kind. The current U.S. Supreme Court is not going to make same-sex couples a suspect class, but a future one might.

You're right. I'm a little bitter. I don't live in California. Its voters have spoken and I respect that.

My angst springs from the LDS involvement at an institutional level (note: I don't really care how individuals chose to vote. It's their state and their consciences). This - to me - was a chance for the (institutional) LDS church to divest itself of some of the commonplace charges of bigotry, parochialism, and provincialism, or at least to remain behind the scenes. Instead, it seems (as Santos initially suggested) that the institutional efforts of the LDS church and its administration may have been the difference. This discourages me.