Well, at first glance reading Section 10 it seems you are right.
However, reading the legislation that was passed, the legislature's position is that the current legislation does not amend the prior act because a California state court has held it unconstitutional.
Now the fact that issue is currently before the California Supreme Court does not negate the prior decision. A lower court's decision is in effect until overruled by a higher court. I believe that the lower court decision has been stayed pending review by the California Supreme Court. However, that does not mean that the lower court decision has no validity, just that marriages cannot be performed in the state on the basis of such decision because of the civil consequences if such a decision was overruled by the state Supreme Court.
I will admit that my reading of Section 8 was wrong, not having read Section 10. But I think it is a long way from saying that the legislature's act was unconstitutional since the prior law has been held unconstitutional.
no subject
However, reading the legislation that was passed, the legislature's position is that the current legislation does not amend the prior act because a California state court has held it unconstitutional.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_19_bill_20050512_amended_asm.pdf
Now the fact that issue is currently before the California Supreme Court does not negate the prior decision. A lower court's decision is in effect until overruled by a higher court. I believe that the lower court decision has been stayed pending review by the California Supreme Court. However, that does not mean that the lower court decision has no validity, just that marriages cannot be performed in the state on the basis of such decision because of the civil consequences if such a decision was overruled by the state Supreme Court.
I will admit that my reading of Section 8 was wrong, not having read Section 10. But I think it is a long way from saying that the legislature's act was unconstitutional since the prior law has been held unconstitutional.