California’s highest court agreed today to hear several  new legal challenges to Proposition 8, the ballot measure which outlawed same-sex marriage in The Golden State, but refused to allow a stay of implementation until it rules.

The three challenges, which will be heard jointly, all allege the voter-approved measure abridges civil rights of a minority group. They argue limiting rights, namely the right to marry whoever one chooses, is tantamount to second-class citizenship.

Lawyers for the defendants, the “Yes on 8” campaign, and the plaintiffs, same-sex couples who failed to marry before the election, were instructed to submit their arguments to the high court for review no later than January 5. While both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 suggest their arguments will prevail, they agree the legal questions asked of California’s seven justices – six of whom voted to hear the case – have little legal precedent in state law.

The lawyers were instructed to gather arguments on the following legal questions:

1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
2. Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

Oral arguments could be expected as early as February.

UPDATE: Gay Patriot’s Dan Blatt isn’t too happy – not necessarily depressed with the passage of Proposition 8, but rather the behavior of, what he calls, “unhappy activists” in the aftermath of their political setback. Blatt, who verbally flogged many leaders of the “No” campaign for failing to effectively state their case, would prefer the Supreme Court rule on behalf of the “Yes on 8” campaign, but probably for reasons that would surprise you:

While I hope the court allows those who got married in recent months to retain the state recognition of their unions, I do believe the Court should let Proposition 8 stand, not because I like the idea of a provision defining marriage in our state constitution, but because I prefer democracy to oligarchy. And we’d have the latter if four justices were allowed to determine the state’s standards for marriage.

The antics of those upset by the success of the initiative suggest that all too many of them aren’t ready for the responsibilities of marriage. That said, many gay people are. It’s too bad they’re not leading the debate on this issue.