[Ghoulish Delight]

Will be interesting.

Because of the narrow scope of the decision as written by the previous courts, the S.C. could uphold the ruling (i.e., Prop 8 remains overturned) without setting precedent for the larger national gay marriage picture. But they could choose to rule on the larger issue. So there are a lot of possible outcomes:

A. Prop 8 remains overturned, but the constitutionality of other states' bans (and possible future bans in California) remains unchallenged ("The process that got Prop 8 passed does not fly in California, therefore the prop is overturned. Matter of California legislative rules, not the gay marriage")

B. Prop 8 remains overturned and other bans are rule unconstitutional ("Forget the proposition process, equal rights is equal rights, prop 9 is unconstitutional on its face")

C. Prop 8 is un-overturned (?), and all state-level bans are considered constitutional. ("The process in California was kosher, and we find that the proposition passes constitutional muster, you have our blessing to go ahead and discriminate")

D. (can this happen? not sure). Prop 8 is un-overturned, but the ruling doesn't address whether the ban is constitutional leaving Prop 8 and other states' bans in effect, but challengeable. I suppose it's possible, right? If they basically say, "The issue here is whether the process of passing prop 8 was kosher in terms of Callifornia law. We rule that it was kosher, therefore that's not grounds to have overturned the prop. But whether the prop itself is Constitutional is not at question. That would have to be brought back to the court through another challenge."

Right?