To Stay or Not to Stay Prop 8

I've had help filtering through some legalese filed today by the Attorney General (more than one, but all similar) from those in the know. It discusses whether or not the enactment of Prop 8 should be put on hold. I'll try to put this as simply as possible.

• Titled "RESPONDENTS' PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF, INCLUDING WRIT OF MANDATE AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF", filed by the Attorney General (AG)
  
• In layman's terms, the Respondents position is:
  

1. The petitions (to overturn Prop 8) raise issues of statewide importance that can only be decided by the California Supreme Court
2. The Court should NOT stay Prop 8 while its decision is pending

• We think, "Why NOT stay it?" Well, back when San Francisco married same-sex couples, the case Lockyer vs. The City and County of San Francisco was brought to the Court, which decided the marriages were invalidated. The Court said if it delayed its decision on the validity of these San Francisco marriages, people in the meantime could act on these marriages, creating changes in their lives that could do irreparable harm, more harm than if they, the Court, decided immediately that the marriages were not valid.
  
• So staying Prop 8 could create marriages post-election but pre-ruling on Prop 8 that could be invalidated, making these couples vulnerable and creating the same situation as above if the Court doesn't act immediately.

What does this mean? It remains to be seen if the Court intends to decide if the government will allow same-sex marriages in the interim (if the Court follows precedent, it will not to avoid harm to these couples). Good news is that it appears the Court will decide on the overall legality of Prop 8.