Some live feeds of the oral arguments at the California Supreme Court in San Francisco: Cal Channel, MSNBC.com, KGO 7 (SF)

As the California Supreme Court hears oral arguments today it seems worth giving a quick overview of the case being brought by the supporters of marriage equality.

First is Attorney General Jerry Brown, who wrote yesterday at Calitics about his reasons for arguing why Prop 8 should be struck down:

The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?...

Fundamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that "all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights" and "among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

These fundamental premises of a free people were declared when the constitution was first adopted. The initiative process came much later in 1911, when the immediate concern was to give the people power over the railroads, which were seen as having a stranglehold over the legislature. In creating this initiative process, there was no discussion or any evidence of intent to permit a simple majority of voters to take away the pre-existing rights deemed inalienable by Article I...

I believe, therefore, the Court must conclude as I have that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and should be stricken.

Also at Calitics, Brian Devine offers an in-depth look at the legal reasons to overturn Prop 8 and concludes:

Proposition 8 far exceeds the boundaries of our current Constitution in the three important ways discussed above. First, it alienates the fundamental and inalienable constitutional rights to privacy and due process that comprise the right to marry. Second, it obliterates the foundational principle of equal protection and imposes a new rule that a bare majority can decide to deny fundamental civil rights to unpopular minorities. Third, it violates the separation of powers clause by stripping the judicial branch of its core constitutional power to prevent the majority from obliterating constitutional rights.

Rather than carrying out the purpose of our existing Constitution, as Livermore requires of an amendment, Proposition 8's effect is to "substantially alter the purpose and to attain objectives clearly beyond the lines of the Constitution as now cast." McFadden v Jordan (1948) 32 C2d 330, 350, 196 P2d 787. This is the type of constitutional change that must be decided in the rigorous and deliberative process required to revise the Constitution, rather than approved by simple majority in a political campaign for a ballot initiative.

The Courage Campaign hopes that the California Supreme Court will do the right thing, the constitutional thing, and the legally correct thing and overturn Proposition 8. But we must all be prepared for any outcome. As we saw last year, a court victory is not a guarantee that fundamental rights will be protected (though it ought to be).

Ultimately we must organize the people of California to support equal marriage rights. And the Courage Campaign will continue to empower that activism.