However, opponents of Prop 8 may have a solid case on their hands. Vikram Amar, a law professor at UC Davis, explained that, ''The Challengers to Proposition 8 argue that the change that it makes is so fundamental that it ought to be considered a revision, not an amendment. And because the legislature did not initiate Proposition 8, then it's invalid, because it didn't go through the right procedure.'' On the other hand, Amar also warned that ''litigation doesn't resolve things until it's run its course.''
After Judge Walker's ruling on Wednesday, supporters of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman immediately filed an appeal to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They also asked for a stay, keeping gays and lesbians from marrying until after the appeal.
Judge Walker ordered a temporary stay on Wednesday, requesting arguments in writing from both sides to be turned in by Friday. If Walker rejects the stay, Prop 8 supporters will most likely request an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.
There was some question as to why same-sex couples could not immediately obtain marriage licenses after the historic ruling. A legal analyst from UC Hastings, professor of law Rory Little, said that marriages issued now, that may be subject to nullification in the event that a higher court overturns Judge Walker's decision, could create too much commotion.
Little said, ''Maintaining the status quo, even if you don't think it's necessary, is a value for a court system.'' Little cited the example of two federal judges who stayed their rulings on desegregating schools in the 1950's for two years before they were confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.