Well, the California "ruling" was no ruling. The Supreme Court declined to rule on procedural grounds, so the lower court overruling of Proposition 8 stands.
Incorrect. The Supreme Court did not rule on the substantive issue, but did rule on the procedural question of whether Prop. 8 proponents had standing, deciding that they didn't. If they had declines to rule at all they would not have granted Certiorari.
In any case, implementation of the CA Supreme Court's decision could not go ahead until the USSC had issued its decision; now the state is free to promulgate new rules.
The case concerning California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, was decided on technical grounds, with the majority saying that it was not properly before the court. Because officials in California had declined to appeal a trial court’s decision against them and because the proponents of Proposition 8 were not entitled to step into the state’s shoes to appeal the decision, the court said, it was powerless to issue a decision. That left in place a trial court victory for two same-sex couples who had sought to marry.
I'm belaboring the point to make clear that the Supreme Court did not rule on Proposition 8 itself.
> In any case, implementation of the CA Supreme Court's decision could not go ahead until the USSC had issued its decision
The actual decision that can now be implemented is a decision of the US District Court for the Northern District of California (a federal trial court that struck down Prop 8 as a violation of the federal Constitution), not the California Supreme Court (the state appellate court who upheld the Proposition as a valid Constitutional amendment and not an improperly-passed Constitutional revision under the State Constitution.)
