Here this is comment of CA listener... Hope I am wrong, but here is the gist I got.
So, since they already have their opionions written, and none of this mattered. I think they will uphold the marriages to November 5. ... and validate Prop 8.

So, how a minority can get rights back that are taken away I have no clue. Stewart was great and should have had all our sides time. JBrown sent substitute, who was not very good. Starr was the only one 'comfortable' in front of the court, but he was not persuasive.

Chief Justice George wants the whole Amendment process in CA changed. Yesterday preferably.

PS. Thanks for the pics here. Almost went but on communte day to be there by 8?? And then I did want to hear it all, as I had heard last years.

PPS. And I found Father Tony's pics of NGLTF Beach Party first..
that helped!

I watched the whole thing and think it's gonna be tough for us to pull this out. Color me concerned.

To overturn Prop 8, we need to keep all 4 justices from the original marriage decision and it seemed pretty clear to me that we're gonna lose Kennard. While it's possible that we could pick up Corrigan (she seemed open to the revision argument, but not sold on it), I think we may also lose Chief Justice George. So definitely 1, maybe 2 down with an outside chance of a pickup - this does not the good odds make.

On the invalidation question I'm cautiously optimistic. Overall, the justices seemed loathe to apply this retroactively without clear and unequivocal evidence that this was the voters' intent. While Ken Starr made an (unfortunately) well constructed argument that it the invalidation of the marriages is crystal clear from the text of Prop 8, several of the justices clearly weren't buying it. And the whole timeline argument - which came first, Prop 8 or the SC decision, or signature collecting or the lower court marriage decision - was so muddled that I can't imagine it changed any minds.

As far as performances go, I thought Ray Marshall, representing the amici, did the best job, followed closely by Terry Stewart. Shannon Minter was also good, especially in his rebuttal, but seemed nervous in his first bit. Mike Maroko couldn't keep his facts or words straight and kept going into crazytown tangents.

And the AG's guy? Hooo-boy. That was a shitshow. Starts his whole argument by saying that the AG believes this wasn't a revision, thereby undercutting our side's entire argument. Then he goes on to present an alternative theory for overturning Prop 8 that he seemed incapable of explaining, much less defending, and which made no sense to anyone gifted with two brain cells on speaking terms. Should have stayed home.

Sadly, Ken Starr also did a good job. He was obviously well versed and at ease with the court. The best/worst part was that he was logically consistent. When asked if his argument meant that a bare majority of Californians could vote to take away rights from other minority groups or eliminate other rights, such as free speech, he said yes. It certainly made him more credible, but I could see that turning into a PR nightmare. "Ken Starr and the Prop 8 folk think you can take away any right from any minority, as long as you can get half of the voters plus one to vote for it." I hope our side pushes how scary that is over the next few days.

So that's the perspective from a non-lawyer with no prior experience of any Supreme Court arguments. Take it for what it's worth (probably not much). But I guess we'll all know in 90 days, won't we?