A year ago it seemed like everyone was assuming that the Prop 8 federal case would end up at the Supreme Court and trying to predict how they would decide, but I'm reading more law professors now questioning whether Prop 8 proponents have standing at all:
"How can someone who is not covered by an injunction seek a stay for the injunction?" said Erwin Chemerinsky, the founding dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine, who applauded Judge Walker's decision. "It's just such an unusual situation to be challenging the law and not have the state defending it."
The proponents of Proposition 8 -- including the organization known as Protectmarriage.com, which backed the ballot measure -- do have status as defendant-interveners in the case. And in an appeal to the Ninth Circuit filed on Thursday, lawyers for the defendant-interveners said they had legal standing because of "their own particularized interest in defending an initiative they have successfully sponsored."
"California courts have repeatedly allowed proponents to intervene to defend initiatives they have sponsored," the lawyers wrote.
Walker's decision was, basically, that the state of California didn't have the right to put same-sex marriage up for a vote, making the the conflict between the plaintiffs and the state, heard by the federal government. There is something unseemly about allowing non-governmental organizations to fight for expanded state power that the state itself is not even seeking.