Ed Meese does an excellent job in the the NYTs Sunday of outlining what the Prop 8 ‘gay marriage’ trail is really all about – hint: it’s not really about marriage ‘rights’ but about whether courts can dismissively subvert the will of the people and whether the state can define marriage at all.
A few things are certain; the California court is of the kangaroo variety, where the judge has made it clear he is neither fair nor impartial – no surprise considering the location (San Francisco) and the fact that Federal District 9 courts are notoriously liberal, in a fascistic sort of way.
The reality is this will almost certainly make its way to the Supreme Court. The good news is the basis for the case (the ‘intention’ of the Prop 8 supporters) is a very weak basis for overturning an election. The bad news is, it wouldn’t be the first time the Supreme Court has accepted a weak legal theory to advance a activist agenda (see: Roe v Wade)