Closing arguments are today. You can read the plaintiff's and the defendant's answers to Judge Walker's questions here. Brian Leubitz summarizes:
So what are the proponents’ [of Prop 8] advantages? Well, if you read more than a page of their responses you see what they think is their strong point: rational basis scrutiny. In other words, Pugno and the gang believe that because gays and lesbians have never been considered a “suspect class” under the law, they are the ones defending the strategic ground. They only need to prove that there was some “rational basis” for the state to enact the legislation, nothing more....
[The opposing argument from the plaintiffs is that] they believe that a) gays and lesbians are/should be a suspect class and that b) the proponents must prove their case accordingly. Now, I should point out that in In re Marriage Cases, the 2008 decision that made my marriage possible, the California Supreme Court said that sexual orientation is a suspect class under the California Constitution. That doesn’t apply to the federal courts, who are interpreting the federal Constitution, but it is worth noting. However, no federal court has ruled that the federal Constitution does view sexual orientation as a suspect class. This case seeks to change that. It’s a broadening of the law, but one that is reasonable considering recent jurisprudence.
FDL is live-blogging. So is the Courage Campaign and the San Jose Mercury News.