In the case of Prop. 8 at least, the only reason there's a Supreme Court review is progressive thuggery and far-left judicial activism. It's not because of some kind of groundswell. Things are out of hand.
At the Los Angeles Times, "Prop. 8:Some gay rights activists nervous about Supreme Court review":
With the U.S. Supreme Court announcing it would rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, gay rights advocates settled in for at least a few more months in limbo.More here: "Gay couples in California excited, but worried, by court's action."
By agreeing to review Hollingsworth vs. Perry, the justices could hand activists a historic victory and legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. But gay rights advocates are also well aware that the court could rule against them and set the movement back at a time when same-sex marriage has seen a series of election victories at the state level.
"I think it's the critical issue for gay and lesbian Americans today. It's the issue that signals full equality and respect. Not just acceptance -- respect," said Tom Watson, the board chair of Love Honor Cherish, a group that has advocated for a ballot initiative to repeal Proposition 8.
"The case goes directly to the scope of civil rights in this country, whether they're extended to everybody or defined very narrowly," Watson said.
Watson, a Los Angeles attorney, said he expected the justices to take the case, though it was tough to predict how the conservative-leaning court might rule. He noted that the court asked the parties to address whether supporters of Proposition 8 have standing, or the right to defend the measure. Normally, state officials would defend a state law being scrutinized by the Supreme Court, but California's leaders have declined to do so.
If the court found that Proposition 8 supporters do not have standing, the justices would not have to rule on the merits of the case. Under those circumstances, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the measure is unconstitutional would stand and same-sex marriages could resume in California.
"It would be winning on a technicality," Watson said.
Because of the uncertainty, Watson said his group would continue to consider pushing forward with a 2014 ballot measure to repeal Proposition 8. Either way, he said, California's gay and lesbian couples are in for a frustrating wait.
"We have kids growing up with parents that don't have the legal protections that marriage gives," Watson said. "And, let's face it, people die."
PREVIOUSLY: "Supreme Court to Rule on Gay Marriage."