MSNBC just reported the news that the California Supreme Court, which declared a ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional in May, has now agreed to hear the legal challenges to Prop 8, which have been filed since its passage on Nov. 4th.

The Sacramento Bee has it:

The California Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to consider complaints by opponents of Proposition 8 that it improperly revised the constitution to ban gay marriage. The court declined to stay its enforcement in the meantime. [...]

Holton said the court established an expedited briefing schedule. She said oral argument could be held as early as March 2009.

This isn't really that surprising and probably doesn't reveal anything about how they would rule as all sides of the issue have been urging the court to hear the challenges.

California Attorney General Brown Monday urged the California Supreme Court to accept review of the legal challenges to Proposition 8.

"The profound importance of the issues raised by Proposition 8 warrants that this matter be reviewed and promptly resolved by the California Supreme Court," said Brown in a statement to News10.

Attorney General Brown has said publicly he believes same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and November 4, 2008 remain valid and will be upheld by the Court. [...]

Meanwhile the sponsors of California's new same-sex marriage ban are urging the state's highest court to hear a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn the measure.

Lawyer Andrew Pugno said the backers of Proposition 8 are so confident the California Supreme Court would uphold the voter-approved initiative they would prefer the court take the cases and resolve the question quickly.

The crux of the legal challenges to Prop 8 is a process argument rather than a civil rights one. Essentially, Prop 8 opponents argue, as they have for months, that Prop 8 would constitute a "revision" to the constitution, not an "amendment" and as such, a simple majority vote by California voters is not sufficient to make the change that Prop 8 does, i.e. eliminating a minority group's fundamental right. The proper process by which Prop 8 should have gotten to the ballot, they argue, is by 2/3 vote of the legislature; only then should a simple majority have been allowed to revise the constitution in such a fundamental way.

Update [2008-11-19 17:36:36 by Todd Beeton]:Until the court rules, we must continue to assume that Prop 8 will be enacted and fight for its repeal, which is exactly what the Courage Campaign (for whom I do some work) has begun to do with its Repeal Prop 8 petition. If you haven't signed it, please join the almost 300,000 people who have and sign the pledge today.