Question on Prop 8 (codes, law, parties)

[f_m]

So I was reading some of the thread, all closed it appears, about Prop 8. I found out that it seems the state law already defines
"Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the
parties capable of making that contract is necessary."

CA Codes (fam:300-310)

Am I correct, in that the purpose of Prop 8 is to take the same definition, which already exists, and make it part of the constitution? In that case, if Prop 8 doesn't pass, the definition still stands.

[Collideascope]

Originally Posted by f_m

So I was reading some of the thread, all closed it appears, about Prop 8. I found out that it seems the state law already defines
"Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the
parties capable of making that contract is necessary."

CA Codes (fam:300-310)

Am I correct, in that the purpose of Prop 8 is to take the same definition, which already exists, and make it part of the constitution? In that case, if Prop 8 doesn't pass, the definition still stands.

Yes, the definition still stands but is unconstitutional, per the state constitution, as ruled by the California Supreme Court. Many invalidated laws remain on the books. Some states still have a variety of laws banning cohabitation and/r consensual sex between unmarried adults. Some southern states still have Jim Crow laws as part of their local code.

Legislators tend not to worry much about repealing laws that no longer have any effect, except when they become acutely embarassing (ie, Mississippi finally officially banning slavery in 1995).