While, I am disappointed, I am not surprised that the California Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Proposition Eight in the current brouhaha (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html).  Before folks start putting down the justices too quickly, they need to keep in mind that this is the same court that made the landmark ruling that California had to allow gay marriage in the first place.  Proposition Eight was the dark side's response to that ruling in an effort to change the playing field in a way that would eventually force the court to uphold the ban.  It was a tricky thing, given that Proposition Eight was the first time that a law was placed into effect that actively removed rights from folks who had gained them in a state that almost always moves in the direction of granting and protecting rights rather than removing them, but the gamble paid off.  It ain't over.  While some folks will see this setback as a sign that the dark side may gain some momentum, it's not really the case.  Rather the general momentum in society is still towards further liberation and granting of equal rights where they should have been all along.  Even in handing down defeat, the California Supreme Court has upheld the marriages that have already happened – providing an in for further liberalization arguments as in the long run it will become clear that there's no sensible reason to allow some gay marriages and disallow others, precedent has been established.  The court is bound by the law and so they had to interpret things based upon the law and constitution . . . but . . . they've shown a clear tendency to move toward liberalization as long as the law allows them to do so.  That's a good thing.  The folks preparing for the next election need to keep that in mind as they draft the next measure.  Californians have a history of moving forward, there were some very strange demographics occurring as far as voting blocks go in the last battle . . . particularly as blacks were being sucked into a movement that is anti-civil rights.  The folks on the dark side did a very good job of hitting emotional points and fear stressors.  The folks on the pro civil rights side tended to rely on common sense where emotional blocks were being stressed.  Those adverts that addressed the kneejerk emotional sets were simply way too late.  The next time around,  there are opportunities to set things up in a way that brings stronger momentum and more sensible voting behavior from folks who traditionally have supported greater access to civil rights and humane consideration towards one's fellow citizens.

Either way, this battle ain't over.  There is no clear consensus on either side of the aisle on this one.

In my opinon.