The fact that the California Supreme Court did not issue an immediate stay of Prop. 8 does not suggest that the "No on 8" arguments are "weak" -- at least not any more than its concomitant decision to take the 3 (not two) issues up as an original jurisdiction matter and order expedited briefing/hearing suggests the "no on 8" arguments are strong. I personally think the "No on 8" arguments are quite compelling and could even garner some extra support from other Justices, like Chin. If one minority's FUNDAMENTAL rights can be stripped away by a simple majority vote, then ALL minorities' right can likewise be voted away. This would essentially void Californnia's Equal Protection Clause -- a very profound channge to the California Constitution. Moreover, what's the point of the distinction made in the California Constitution between "amendments" and "revisions" if the Framers did not intend to make big changes harder to do than little ones? The loss of FUNDAMENTAL rights (e.g., the right to vote, marry, etc.) is undoubtedly a "big" change.

I agree with Rob that the CA Supreme Court is a longshot solution-but it is at least a shot. Go ACLU! We also need to keep organizing and speaking out as the legal challenges wend their way through the courts, and the best interests of our children is a powerful moral and legal argument. A close friend and fellow activist who self-identifies as a lesbian with 5 (wonderful) biological children has been very effective speaking to groups both by her words and her example. Many folks in our community have children or would like to have them. This is another powerful argument for LGBT civil rights. And it must have occurred to others besides me, how much easier our own childhoods might have been with a gay parent or two.

I agree with Chris C. The state supreme court could have refused to accept the case(s) against Prop. 8. The court not only accepted the case, but put it on the fast track for review.

I believe that both the state and federal constitutions require "strict scrutiny" of any legislation that can reasonably be construed as discriminatory or as denying a minority group its civil rights.

It was because of the strict scrutiny requirement that a majority of voters in Colorado were not able to overturn gay rights laws passed in the cities of Denver and Aspen.

Strict scrutiny means that the defenders of Prop. 8 would have to demonstrate a legitimate and compelling state need to deny or limit civil rights (such as censoring people and restricting their movements and freedom in a time of war.)

I don't see how that need could be demonstrated in this case without resorting to the logical fallacy of question begging: "We should discriminate for no other reason than that we should discriminate."

The defenders of Prop. 8 claim to be worried that school children will be taught that gay marriage is normal and acceptable. And let's not pretend that they won't be taught just that. But then, why shouldn't they be taught that if indeed -- as the very same court that is fast-tracking consideration of the case against Prop. 8 originally found -- gay marriage IS normal and acceptable?

The very same court that Dekoven now says is unlikely to defend the right of gays to marry gave those gays that right.

It would take extraordinary political pressure for the justices to now reverse course.

I suppose it is possible that they will, but I doubt it.