Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California. — Proposition 8

This is the exact text of the same law that was overturned by the California Supreme Court. Does successfully voting in an amendment that was previously declared unconstitutional somehow protect the amendment from being overturned again? I'm not certain, but the belief that the will of the people is superior to the law of the land certainly doesn't sound sensible, particular in a nation of laws.

If this proposition succeeds, the amendment is not afforded constitutional protection, and the amendment is overturned again, then would the reintroduction of this amendment simply be a wasteful exercise? I am inclined to view this proposition as a disservice to taxpayers, who seem to have been forced into paying for a vicious cycle during a period of economic turmoil.

The campaign, ProtectMarriage.com, argues that Proposition 8:

... restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.

According to the campaign's own website, 61% of voters passed the same amendment into law in 2000. 61% of voters is hardly a "vast majority." This assertion might have fared better were they to claim that "3 out of every 5 voters in California supported this amendment."

That said, the referenced vote occurred 8 years ago. In the 1950s, young men and women in the United States were encouraged to leave home during their early 20s to make lives for themselves. Are we to assume that because a fact was true in the past that the same fact is true in the present? Perhaps that was the objective? Or perhaps this campaign is merely reflecting the obstinacy of the proposition's advocates.

... overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

Okay, the decision outrages the campaigners. Fine. Did the California Supreme Court act against the will of the people though? As far as I know, the California Constitution is a product of the people for the people. Defending the Constitution as the Supreme Court has done is an act in favor of the will of the people. Who comprises "the people of California" cannot be limited to a small segment of real activists.

... protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

Same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marrage because, traditionally, marriage is a contract, authorized as binding by the state, that recognizes an intimate bond between two individuals. That is what children and adolescents should be taught in public schools:

Marriage is not necessarily religious in nature. If religionists choose to marry a man and a woman in a place of worship under a god, then they should be free to do so. Likewise, others should be free to enter into any reasonable marital contract they so desire.

Furthermore, given that same-sex marriage is permitted in California now, the test of the validity of the "consequences claim" is easy: are Californians currently being forced to be tolerant of certain lifestyles? This campaign's existence answers that question!