Hopper
Banned
From a legal perspective the interesting part is that the Judge chose to apply the rational basis standard under the 14th Amendment. This means a couple of things:
1) Homosexuals are not given the same 14th Amendment protections as other protected classes such as racial minorities, women, etc. Laws targetting racial minorities have to be justified by showing that they are "necessary to promote a compelling state interest." Laws targetting women have to be shown to be "substantially related to an important state interest." Laws targetting homosexuals, however, need only be justified by showing they are "rationally related to a legitimate government interest." That is the lowest equal protection hurdle that a government has to clear. In this sense, homosexuals are not protected to the same extent as gay advocates would probably like.
2) Despite the low standard the government had to clear, they still didn't clear it. That's not a good sign if you're a Prop 8 supporter.
Let's take Kicky's summary as accurate (I'm not suggesting that it isn't). The Supreme Court can, in theory, say, "We've changed our minds. We were wrong before in not affording homosexuals more than the amount of equal protection rights given to every other average citizen. Henceforth we grant them the same degree of rights as has been given to women (or perhaps to racial and religious minorities)."
That would entitle them to a higher degree of judicial scrutiny of legislative enactments which purportedly "discriminate" against them. And that is the only hope here that I can see. I'm no bottom feeder and I could be wrong (just as a bottom-feeder could be). But they are just not going to prevail on the same "rational reason" standard that all other citizens (except those mentioned) get, if you ask me. Only the Supreme Court can elevate the standard of protection given to homosexuals. Appellate Courts can't (at least not properly).
What I'm saying is that I think it's just wishful thinking to conclude that Prop 8 has no possible or conceivable (which is the test, even though Kicky didn't say it) rational relationship to any legitmate state interest.