Law professor Vikram David Amar questions whether the Prop 8 trial will make it that far:
[This case is] destined for the Ninth Circuit. But whether it goes any farther depends on what the Ninth Circuit does. If the Ninth Circuit (either through a three-judge panel or the whole court sitting en banc) rules in favor of the plaintiffs and invalidates Proposition 8, then the Supreme Court may very well feel it must take the case, since same-sex marriage would be a federal right west of Rockies but not in most other parts of the country. But if the Ninth Circuit rejects the plaintiffs’ claims, don’t expect the Supreme Court to take the up the issue of same-sex marriage anytime soon. Still, when the Justices do address some future anti-same-sex-marriage measure enacted into law by a state and down the road, they may have to do so they’ll have the benefit of the trial record in the Proposition 8 case, as well the opinions and/or evidence from other cases that will have been decided in the interim.
Brian Leubitz agrees. I believe the great merit of the trial was educational, rather than legal.
I think the complete evisceration of the arguments of the anti-marriage equality crowd and exposure of their motivations were the key things. it would have been much better televised. But I feel about it the way I felt about Obama's Q and A with the GOP last Friday. When you can get the arguments directly in contact with one another, the overwhelming logic of marriage equality wins. That's why I was delighted to include in my own anthology the best critiques of the reform - because by showing that even the best arguments of the other side are weaker than ours, we move the ball forward.
Of course, we have a minority full of passionate intensity which so often overwhelms reason. But after a while, even they have to relent. As they did on inter-racial marriage which they opposed at the time with even more intensity.