That might actually be the best case scenario, however unlikely, because social conservatives could not lambast the SCOTUS without attacking one (or more) of their own. If one or more justices says Prop. 8 violated the US Constitution but explicitly says that does not mean civil union laws must be replaced with gay marriage laws it could even mute some of the general outcry.

Personally, I still feel civil unions as such are the only thing that has any standing in state and federal law, but that is just one laymans opinion. I want to keep the government well away from marriage as a Sacrament (and all other Sacraments) for reasons that ought to be obvious to the religious right if they could just put their bigotry on a shelf long enough to use their brains. That would leave us to consider legal marriage purely as a social contract, and consenting adults ought to be able to enter into any legally binding contract they like with each other (which would incidentally apply to polygamy as well but, near as I can tell, even most gays are still OK with hunting polygamists for sport; so much for sexual liberation and equality. )


Agreed. It is practically impossible to enforce anti-sodomy and abortion laws without an illegal search, but once we start talking about legally binding agreements as a matter of public record, privacy is off the table.