California’s long, tortuous war over same-sex marriage enters its next phase on Thursday, when the state Supreme Court hears oral arguments on three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8, the controversial constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage.

The easy way to think about these cases — and the way most non-lawyers are likely to do it — is to decide which side of the issue you’re on and root for that side to win. In other words, if you support marriage between same-sex couples, you’ll want the cases to succeed so that Proposition 8 will be overturned. If you believe men and women should only be allowed to marry each other, you’ll hope the lawsuits fail.

That’s fine. It’s outcome-based. But frankly, it has very little to do with what the Supreme Court is going to consider in the oral arguments.

Instead, the argument in the courtroom will be broader and more abstract. Who makes law in a democracy? What should we do when laws contradict one another? Who is the ultimate sovereign in the state of California — the people at the polls or their written Constitution or their appointed judges or their elected legislators? Can fundamental constitutional rights — inalienable rights — be withdrawn from one group but not another?

These are big, thorny questions with implications that go well beyond whether gays are allowed to marry. What follows is a cheater’s guide to the issues at hand.

Remind us: How did we get here?

The battle over same-sex marriage sometimes seems endless. Gay couples have been trying to get married in California since the late 1970s, and their opponents have been working just as hard since then to ensure that it does not happen.

Here are some highlights @ Gay marriage on trial
Los Angeles Times – CA,USA

On dirt road that leads to Wahneta, Florida a driver made the ghastly discovery of a bloody body stabbed to death sitting on the side of the road. The date was Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at about 1:20AM.

That dead man was Ryan Keith Skipper, 25, a gay man. The trials of his accused murders – William David Brown Jr., 22, and Joseph Bearden, 23 – begin today, after several delays, as lawyers begin selecting a jury in a Polk County courtroom, reports The Ledger.

The pair were arrested soon after Skipper’s body was found and have remained in custody over the past two years.

Details of what happened between the three men remain sketchy. Family and friends hope the trial will shed light on Skipper’s final hours.

 See Trial Begins For Men Accused Of Killing Gay Man In Florida
On Top Magazine, OH 

SAN DIEGO COURTS — The sexual harassment case brought by four San Diego firefighters against the city should be in the jury’s hands Wednesday, when a dozen men and women likely will struggle to answer a central question:

Did the four firefighters, who were ordered to drive a city fire engine in the 2007 gay pride parade, encounter pervasive or severe harassment from parade spectators and participants?

Each firefighter has taken the stand, and after nearly two weeks of courtroom testimony, two theories have emerged.

City attorneys suggested that the men are homophobic and painted them as money-hungry opportunists who were uncomfortable but not victims of sexual harassment. The defense also said most of the firefighters’problems stemmed from taking their case to the news media and filing the lawsuit.

The firefighters said that not only were they victimized during the parade, they also suffered headaches, anxiety, anger and other stress-related issues because of what they heard and saw: catcalls, insults, simulated sex acts, public nudity, and men touching themselves and each other.

All four firefighters are married, and three have children. They have more than 45 years of combined experience with the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department.

 See Gay parade case’s jury facing key question
San Diego Union Tribune, CA -

An effort by two lesbian women to overturn Oklahoma’s legal ban on homosexual marriage has been denied for a second time in a Tulsa courtroom.

The bizarre case started when two women, reportedly “married” in Canada filed for divorce in Tulsa. The divorce document, which had initials instead of first names, didn’t show that the two parties were both women.

Cait O’Darling used the name “C. O’Darling” in filing for the divorce from “S. O’Darling,” who was later identified as Stephanie Meissen. O’Darling claims they were “married” in Toronto in 2003.

A judge unwittingly granted the divorce, thinking it was a man and a woman. He later vacated that decision and the two women appealed.

Had the divorce been granted under Oklahoma law, it would have been tacit recognition of homosexual “marriage.” Radical homosexual groups around the country were hoping for a legal precedent to develop around the case in Oklahoma. It’s also being tried in other states.

See Court rules against lesbian in gay divorce case
Tulsa Beacon