[Conscience of a Conservative]

However I do think California can hold their own officials in violation of the California constitution if they honor the District Court’s order and don’t get an appellate decision.

No they can't. Under the author's reading of the CA Constitution, the current situation is:

1. California officials may not enforce Prop 8, pursuant to the Federal Constitution (per the District Court's decision); but, 2. California officials must enforce Prop 8, pursuant to the California Constitution

California officials, therefore, face directly conflicting obligations under the California and Federal Constitutions. Under the Supremacy Clause, the answer is quite clear - where an official's obligations under a state law or Constitution conflict with the Federal Constitution, the Federal constitution wins out. You can't sue (well, you can sue, but won't win) to force a state official to take an action inconsistent with the Federal constitution.

[rxsid]

"However I do think California can hold their own officials in violation of the California constitution if they honor the District Court’s order and don’t get an appellate decision.

No they can't. Under the author's reading of the CA Constitution, the current situation is:

1. California officials may not enforce Prop 8, pursuant to the Federal Constitution (per the District Court's decision); but, 2. California officials must enforce Prop 8, pursuant to the California Constitution

California officials, therefore, face directly conflicting obligations under the California and Federal Constitutions. Under the Supremacy Clause, the answer is quite clear - where an official's obligations under a state law or Constitution conflict with the Federal Constitution, the Federal constitution wins out. You can't sue (well, you can sue, but won't win) to force a state official to take an action inconsistent with the Federal constitution.

======================================================

Does the US Constitution saying anything about the right to marry?

The laws regarding marriage licences vary from state to state.

Currently, gays married in CA, may in fact not be recognized as married in TX (for example).

The states (currently) have discretion to some degree.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I can see how the feds would say DOMA is unconstitutional (because it involves fed distributed (tax payer) money, etc), but how can the feds (US disctrict court) say CA has no right to define marriage in their state?