May I just say that I think the court seemed to be thinking about upholding Prop 8, but retaining the legal status of the same-sex marriages performed during the 5 months while the Court's rule remained legal?
And may I say that I saw they felt more strongly about retaining the rights of those married couples than of actually retaining Prop 8? With that I mean that, yes, I think they drilled the Attorney General with questions in a way they didn't with Mr. Starr (who is, I believe, a real-life version of Al Pacino in The Devil's Advocate), but they seemed to be more scared of the consequences of overturning the will of the people than actually convinced by the validity of Prop 8 itself (ie, on ethical grounds).
It was also funny/disheartening to hear the judges admit that this was the first time they had to rule on something like this ("first impression" was the term), but at the same time continuously referring back to dozens of previous cases and court rules, from whether women could be bartenders (yes, there was a court case on that!) to death penalty to the right to fish.
If we can't compare those cases with this particular one, then let's not.
And if it isn't common sensical to understand that this is the will of the majority overturning a court ruling, which we are all perfectly able to do under this Constitution, BUT that in so doing THEY VOTED ON AN AMENDMENT/REVISION THAT DIDN'T APPLY TO THEM (so they didn't have to think about their consequences, so they didn't have to be properly informed, so... etc), and that IT DID SINGLE OUT A SUSPECT CLASS as a minority not fit from a fundamental right such as the liberty to marry, then what else is going to turn the Court around?