Hold on a second partner. You are seriously saying for gays in California the "right to marry came from California's Constitution" and a majority of voters took that away? Let's set the record straight:<quoted text>
The Prop 8 case in far more nuanced than you suggest. The plaintiffs are not asking SCOTUS to create a right to marry under the US Constitution. They are asking for protection of their rights under the US Constitution. The right to marry came from California's constitution. That right was taken away by the majority of California voters enacting legislation through the initiative process. The question is whether, under the federal constitution, states may take away rights from targeted minorities without compelling reason.
If Baker were the slam-dunk you want it to be, Perry would already be dead.
1) Prop 22 passed making gay marriage explicitly illegal in CA.
2) The CA courts deemed Prop 22 unconstitutional making gay marriage legal for a few months. The court was asked to wait until after the election to see what happens with Prop 8 but declined. Big mistake there.
3) Prop 8 was passed as a constitutional amendment shortly thereafter effectively taking the matter out of the high court's hands. Prop 8 had precisely the same language as Prop 22. It was clearly the intent of the electorate to over-rule the court.
4) Prop 8 was upheld by the CA high court (or the "process" of it being enacted was).
5) Gay advocates took the Perry case to a gay judge who ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional because it "took away" marriage rights and was an "irrational" decision.
6) The ninth circuit upheld the gay judges decision (no surprise).
Never mind the legal wrangling. Given the history here I would be surprised if the SCOTUS chooses not to take up the case. But hey...you never know now do you?