I know that I promised not to talk too much politics, but I just thought that I would discuss a few issues which I have seen in news articles that might be of interest to many people. Having a background in law, there are probably a number of issues that I can explain better than most (though many of my classmates would clearly disagree).
I. "The Mormons should lose their tax exempt status because they violated the separation of church and state."
This is actually two completely separate issues that have almost nothing to do with each other. Anyone who makes this argument has absolutely no knowledge of the Constitution or the legal process of the United States.
A. Tax Exemption
Tax exemption has nothing to do with the Constitution. The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to institute an income tax, but it is entirely up to Congress to decide how that tax is to operate. They accomplished this through the extremely dense tax code (my abridged version for individuals is like 1500 pages in size 10 font). Through section 501 of the tax code, certain non-profit organizations, including churches are exempted from paying taxes. This includes most unions, charities, environmental groups, and other such organizations. They are prohibited from supporting or opposing candidates, but not issues. There are also other limitations, but these are unrelated to Proposition 8.
These organizations are not prohibited from endorsing issues. This makes sense, otherwise an organization that supports the homeless would be prevented from asking the city to build a homeless shelter and the Sierra club would be prevented from petitioning for land preserves.
The fact that churches are given an exemption has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the fact that they are a non-profit organization. If, because they endorsed an issue, the LDS church was to lose its tax exempt status for supporting the amendment, so would the CA Teachers' Union (which was the biggest contributor against the measure) and every gay rights non profit in the country who openly opposed it. The only way that the government could punish the LDS church would be to prevent all churches from tax exemption. No Congress would face the wrath of this country by trying such an action as Mormons, Jews, Catholics (including the more liberal Hispanic groups), Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Black Evangelicals, and even Reverend Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ would likely complain to Congress. That would be Congressional suicide.
B. Separation of Church and State
Separation of church and state is an entirely different matter. This is a constitutional matter. Despite popular, ignorant belief, the language "separation of church and state" is not Constitutional language, but is a phrase used by the Supreme Court and others to address the limitations in the first amendment. The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
This includes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, each which limits the actions of government. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits Congress from taking any action which unduly limits the ability of American citizens to practice their faith (both of these clauses have been applied to local and state governments through the operation of the 14th Amendment's due process clause; trust me, don't even bother trying to figure out how). There are limitations to the practice of that religion, including prohibiting Polygamy, but most religious practice is unaffected. This clause, however, has nothing to do with Proposition 8.
Those who argue that the LDS Church's actions violate the Establishment clause have several problems. First of all, neither Congress, nor the state did anything. It was the people that chose to pass a law and there is nothing prohibiting the people from passing a law based on personal conviction. I could likewise pass environmental laws, gun registration laws, estate tax laws, or any type of law because of religious or secular conviction. This was a vote of the people who were influenced by any number of things to support this proposition.
Secondly, if some argue that this vote should be invalidated because many who voted for it believed homosexuality to be a sin, would that mean that any law that is passed should be examined to find out why and which (anonymous) voters supported it? If it was religious conviction, the law is unconstitutional? That would be absurd beyond belief. Finally, it should be noted that the church itself did not donate any money to the cause. The $22 million or so that was donated came from church members.
II. Gay Rights Groups are Taking This to Court to Challenge the Constitutionality of the Amendment
At first glance, this seems absurd. It seems impossible for a Constitutional Amendment to be unconstitutional, but there may be an argument. First of all, if the California Constitution mandates equal protection under the law, plenty of left-leaning judges (sorry to any left-leaning individuals) are willing to make gays a protected group and ensure that all laws treat them fairly. I don't think that defining marriage violates the law because state-supported marriage is not for the couples. The only reason that the state supports marriage is because it ensures future generations. I will not further argue why traditional marriage should be the only legally authorized marriage, but suffice it to say there are arguments on both sides. So, if prohibiting gay marriage violates equal protection, Proposition 8 would violate the state Constitution. We will see what this happens.
That is all I will say for not, unless someone has more questions.