I've still got a bunch of entries on this topic waiting to be written, but I'm gonna leapfrog over those to post some more recent stuff.
For example: ten states' attorneys general have asked the CA Supreme Court to stay its decision until after the November vote. (Assuming the amendment makes the ballot, but that seems very likely.) Excerpt from NY Times article:
The attorneys general said that allowing same-sex marriages now could unnecessarily open the door to legal challenges from gay residents of other states who get married in California. Upon returning to their home states, the newlyweds could demand equality in everything from tax-filing status to testimonial privileges in civil suits, the attorneys general said.
“Absent a stay of the mandate in this case, that number will certainly be very large indeed,” Mark L. Shurtleff, the Utah attorney general, wrote on behalf of the group in a letter delivered on Thursday and released publicly on Friday.
Yes, that's right: we, the attorneys general, want you, the CA Supreme Court, to prevent same-sex marriage because it will be too popular. (Too many of those damn gays might demand equality!) Meanwhile, all the other opponents are arguing that it should be stopped because it's too unpopular.
Yes, I know they're not talking about the same thing. But I was amused nonetheless.
Maybe we supporters of same-sex marriage should start referring to ourselves (or at least our, um, numbers) as "very large indeed."
. . . Y'know, 26 states have constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, and all but 6 of the other states have laws against it. It's not like there's been a wave of pro-same-sex-marriage sentiment sweeping the nation. It begins to sound to me like the A.G.s are being a little paranoid. "OH NOES!" they seem to be saying; "our state might catch GAY COOTIES from California! Also, it is SO MUCH WORK for POOR US if our gay citizens go off and get married in your state and then want us to recognize them! WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL!"
. . . Anyway, so one good thing about this request for a stay is that Jerry Brown, the CA attorney general, is opposing it, saying that "the matter has now been resolved by the state Supreme Court." Brown's office was defending the law that the Court struck down, and I was kinda upset about that; but I've subsequently been told that the A.G. was legally bound to defend it, and it now sounds to me like maybe he was just doing his legal duty rather than defending it because he believed in it. Brown says:
The Court has declared the law governing the right of same-sex couples to marry, and the Attorney General undertakes to give effect to that declaration with no less vigor than he previously sought to give effect to the statutes in dispute. [...] It is time for these proceedings to end.
As quoted in an International Herald Tribune article. Also from that article (but not a quote from Jerry Brown):
The Supreme Court has until the close of business on June 16 to decide on the stay request, but it also could give itself a 60-day extension to consider the matter. The California Office of Vital Records informed local officials this week they can start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 17, barring further instructions from the court.
So, one way or another, we'll know more within a couple weeks.
Oh, and I admire San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's take on this (according to a San Francisco Chronicle article): "To further delay constitutional rights to gay and lesbian partners based on political conjecture as to whether or not an amendment will pass--or even qualify for the ballot--would be both unprecedented and inhumane."