However, I just wanted to point out how the Conservative Agenda will re-write history to prove their point. From Sutherland INstitute's Paul Mero, in a comment to this post:
Utah does have Amendment 3, thank goodness. But a constitutional amendment can be repealed. What would that process look like? Well, what did that similar process look like in CA? It looked like a court amassing mountains of state and local code and ordinances and concluding 1) that a constitutional amendment could very well be unconstitutional and 2) the track record throughout the state in regards to gay rights seemed clear enough for the Justices to wonder out loud why gays shouldn’t be afforded the status of legal marriage.
There was no logical fallacy of a “slippery slope” in play. The precedents were all very logical to the Justices, so much so they were baffled why the status of marriage shouldn’t be bestowed on same-sex couples.
First, for the love of Pete, can we stop calling it "Amendment 3?" That is not it's name. It's name is Article I Section 29 of the Utah Constitution.
Secondly, California did not have a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting marriage until November 2008. In 2000, California residents passes Proposition 22 (2000) which, in the same 14 words used in Proposition 8 (2008), prohibited California from recognizing same-sex marriages.
However, Prop 22 (2000) amended California Code, not the California Constitution. So, therefore, you are wrong, Mr Mero. It was not the Constitution that was found to be unconstitutional.
Furthermore, had it been the Constitution that was unconstitutional, what difference would Prop 8 (2008) had? It, too, would be struck down by the courts, pretty quickly,too.
wikipedia: California Proposition 22 (2000)