Here's the opinion of one of the bunch that's suing to have the transportation funding statutes overturned as unconstitutional.
Here is a story on the latest appeal in the Darryl Atkins case. It says in part: "
I read the latest ACLU brief from the California same-sex marriage litigation, which says in part: "If the California Constitution does not provide lesbians and gay men with the right to marry, then it will have failed them in the profoundest possible respects. It will tell them that they are not entitled to have their love and their commitment ratified by the state except in a pale simulacrum of marriage, known as domestic partnerships – a status that is not merely separate, but inexorably inferior in every way that matters most to them as human beings." The first response that comes to mind: if the California Constitution does not provide lesbians and gay men with the right to marry, then they lose the case, regardless of all that other.
The ACLU did get a good result in the case described here and here, brought on behalf of a couple of anti-Bush protesters, who got $80,000.