Kap, they tried. The California Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as premature. In order to have a "Case in controversy" there has to be an existing harm. Until Prop 8 passed, there was no harm. Now that it exists, I suspect that the Cal Supreme Court will strike it down as a "revision" not an amendment to the Constitution. Legally, I think the No on 8 people are correct. Unfortunately, it will once again create the perception that "activist courts" are "forcing" the issue onto the populace, when in fact it is the activist religionists that are doing so.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich