Please refresh my memory. What lawsuits were presented to the CA Supreme Court challenging that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. I can't find any but I guess there must be some because you've mentioned it a few times.
That would be the following (from Wikipedia):
Early legal challenges
On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment. As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005-1006.) The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved, and a new petition arguing that Proposition 8 is a revision was filed by civil rights groups on November 5, 2008.
On July 22, 2008, Proposition 8 supporters mounted a legal challenge to the revised ballot title and summary, contending that Attorney General Brown had inserted "inflammatory" language that would "unduly prejudice voters against" Proposition 8. Supporters claimed that research showed that an attorney general had never used an active verb like “eliminates” in the title of a ballot measure in the past fifty years in which ballot measures have been used. Representatives of the Attorney General produced twelve examples of ballot measures using the word "eliminates" and vouched for the neutrality and accuracy of the ballot language.
On August 8, 2008, the California Superior Court turned down the legal challenge, affirming the new title and summary, stating, "the title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry' in California. The California Supreme Court unequivocally held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution." That same day, proponents of Prop. 8 filed an emergency appeal with the state appeals court. The Court of Appeal denied their petition later that day and supporters did not seek a review by the Supreme Court of California.The deadline for court action on the wording of ballot summaries and arguments in the voter pamphlet was August 11.
While turning down the challenge to the title and summary, the California Superior Court also found that the Yes on 8 campaign had overstated its ballot argument on the measure's impact on public schools and ordered a minor change in wording. The original arguments included a claim that the Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage requires teachers to tell their students, as young as kindergarten age, that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. The court said the Yes on 8 argument was false because instruction on marriage is not required and parents can withdraw their children. The court said the ballot argument could be preserved by rewording it to state that teachers "may" or "could" be required to tell children there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.From the San Francisco Chronicle:
The plaintiffs are six unmarried same-sex couples and the advocacy group Equality California; another couple who married shortly after the May 15 ruling took effect; and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, joined by Santa Clara County.
Although their lawyers would not discuss their strategy publicly, each suit seeks to overturn Prop. 8 on the basis of state law and avoids federal constitutional claims that could send the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gay-rights advocates have tried to keep such disputes away from the nation's high court, out of fear that the justices would issue a nationwide ruling rejecting any right of same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution.
That leaves the plaintiffs with the difficult task of showing that Prop. 8, a state constitutional amendment, violates other, more basic provisions of California's Charter. The court has almost always rejected such challenges to other constitutional amendments.
Some of the same legal organizations filing suit Wednesday offered similar arguments this summer to try to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot, but the court refused, while leaving room for a postelection challenge.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/BA3B13UM63.DTL&type=politicsSimply put, the burden is on the plantiffs to show that Prop. 8 is a complete revision of the state Constitution, instead of an amendment. If they can't (and from what I've read, some legal experts think it's a long shot), then as they say in football, "the ruling on the field stands!!".
The only reference to the case you listed appears to be from Minnesota in 1972.
It seems to be that once the Supreme Court made the decision in May that acknowledged that gay couples had the right to marry that there is now a valid (seemingly) challenge to the constitutionality of Prop 8. Prior to that decision there would not be a similar argument.
No, the court ruled, based on how the constitution read at that time. The constitution reads differently now.
The decision by the court was in May of 2008 and Prop 8 didn't even get the votes necessary to get on the ballot until June.
The votes were submitted, before the court made its ruling. Prop. 8 was going to be on the ballot, regardless of how the court ruled.
More religious bullshit. Why is it a "sin"? Because a book written a couple thousand years ago tells you it is? That might be good enough for me if I were retarded. 
Yet again, religion controlling the minds of the sheep.
You're the one doing the bleating. What's your excuse?
The Yes group outworked the No group. No took a lot of things for granted, not the least of which was the resolve of the Yes campaign to spread their divisiveness across California and the rest of the nation.
No won't get caught flat-footed next time around, though. You can bank on that.
There will be another round of protests this weekend and then things should die down a bit while some stuff works its way through the courts and that's when the work of getting the necessary petitions going will get underway.
It's going to become a reality for California in either 2009 or 2010, so the truly interesting thing to observe will be how the current Yes on 8 crowd reacts when gay marriage is granted equal standing in the eyes of the law.
Which "gay rights" group is getting the petition started? The court has to focus on what to do with the 18,000 gay couples with licenses in hand, and whether or not Prop. 8 is retroactive.
