John Culhane parses the prop 8 ruling:
The majority went on for almost 140 pages. In brief, their points
which I’ll next explore in somewhat greater depth are these: (1) The
California Constitution is easy to amend, and that’s not something we
can change: (2) The deprivation of rights isn’t that big a deal,
really, because all that’s been removed by Prop 8 is the word
“marriage” rather than the rights that go with it; (3) Based on
precedent and constitutional history, Prop 8 is a permissible amendment
to the state’s constitution not a more substantial
revision, which would require prior submission to the legislatures (and
a 2/3 approval) before going to the voters; (4) There’s no separation
of powers problem here: Everyone’s doing their constitutional job; and
(5) The Attorney General’s “novel” argument that certain rights are
“inalienable” and therefore immune from the vagaries of majority rule,
has no traction.
It sounds like a reasonable judgment to me. The job of supporters of equality is now to make the case for real substantive equality - in name as well as form. And to take that argument to the people of California.