Because the initiative only states that gays will be killed on sight. You are basing the statement that "due process" will be carried out based on nothing but an assumption while ignoring the actual writing in the initiative.

http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008%20%28Sodomy%29_0.pdf

No, what it actually says is "any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method. " ie This bit is wholly within the realms of fair trial. Laws do not need to mention due process on every line to say that it should be taken. The law for theft says "steal stuff serve up to 5 years" not "steal stuff and then have a trial and then serve up to 5 years" (paraphrasing obviously) Then it goes on to say " should the state persist in inaction over 1 year after due notice, the general public is empowered and deputized to execute" ie the general public is empowered to take the law into their own hands and form a jury of his peers, then form sentence. (execute in this sense means 'do' not 'kill'). It doesn't actually mention killing on sight at all

The Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment which the Supreme Court

This is the actual answer to my question. This is clearly cruel and unusual punishment (in mind and most rational peoples' minds), so would be unconstitutional under this - though it is slightly subjective (some people - like him would say it is not cruel and is ratified in the bible - but rational people would probably (possibly) disagree)

I know you won't have a rational response and will continue your petty responses with absolutely no substance. But the fact is that this initiative is unconstitutional under even the most uneducated interpretation of the US Constitution and Supreme Court decisions.

Yes it is unconstitutional - but you failed to mention the correct area until now.

But seeing as you're not from the US

Relevance? Americans stick their noses into other countries' policies all the time. It of value for other nationalities to understand a little foreign law

I highly doubt you'll admit how categorically wrong you are. Feel free to prove me wrong on that count though. Because there is absolutely no way you can prove anything else I've said wrong.

Translation - please shut up - I going to keep shouting until you shut up