All interested parties have now entered their respective briefs in anticipation of the March hearing by the California Supreme Court regarding the legality of Proposition 8. The "No on 8" side contends that Prop 8 is invalid for three reasons:

• It had such a drastic impact on individual rights that it amounted to a revision of the Constitution, not merely an amendment. A revision can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds legislative vote or by delegates to a constitutional convention.

• It violated the constitutional separation of powers by stripping the courts of their authority to protect a minority group from discrimination.

• It eliminated "inalienable rights," those protected by the Declaration of Rights in the opening clause of the state Constitution, without a compelling reason. That argument comes from Attorney General Jerry Brown, who reversed course after defending the previous marriage law before the court.

A ruling is expected within 90 days of the hearing, and it'll be the final word on marriage equality in California until one of the opposing camps puts it back on the ballot again.

In other news today, a California federal court denied the request of Prop 8 backers to block access to the names and addresses of 36,000 people who donated money in support of the marriage ban. The court upheld the state's 35-year-old Political Reform Act, which makes the identities of those giving $100 or more to ballot initiatives or political a matter of public record.