In Cal there's enough blame to go all around. The "No on 8" campaign, at least initially, hardly admitted that it was about same-sex marriage. Gays didn't appear in the ads. Perhaps they were following the same cautious approach Obama took.

(I have to say, the final round of ads, showing the history of discrimination in California, the Japanese internment, laws forbidding Armenians from owning houses in the Central Valley, the anti-miscegenation laws, was much more powerful and connected discrimination against same-sex with a history of California overcoming past bigotries.)

Many of the newly registered voters, minorities who have suffered discrimination, were quite willing to dish it out to others.

But, of course, most blames goes to the bigots who pushed this atrocity. The usual suspects.

To me, it was the most depressing but not surprising results of Tuesday night.

+++

Still, there are lawsuits going to the Supreme Court that have a good chance of winning. There are two theories, as far as I can figure:

First, the amendment to the Constitution is itself flawed. In the court decision the judges said that no group can be arbitrarily denied rights under the Cal state constitution. There has to be a real reason to treat a group differently under the law (and no, Leviticus doesn't count). They then said that there was no reason for denying same-sex couples the right to marry. Therefore, the amendment is itself fatally flawed because it is in conflict with the major tenets of the constitution.

Second, to make radical changes to the State Constitution an amendment must first go before the state legislature (not sure which house or both houses) and get a two-thirds majority before voters are allowed to vote on it. When Prop 8 was first proposed the State Supreme Court deferred ruling on its constitutionality, saying that they'd make a ruling after it passed.

In my humble opinion, changing the State Constitution to allow arbitrary discrimination against one group would be a major change in its intent.

Therefore, I hope and expect that the court will rule that the amendment is struck down on both points, Leviticus be damned.