Meanwhile, five civil rights groups asked California's highest court Friday to annul the ban on the grounds that Proposition 8 threatens the legal standing of all minority groups, not just gays.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and two other groups petitioned the state Supreme Court to prevent the change from taking effect.
The petition is the fourth seeking to have the measure invalidated. But it's the first to argue that the court should step in because the gay marriage ban, which overturned the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay unions, sets a precedent that could be used to undermine the rights of racial minorities.
Eva Paterson, president of the San Francisco-based Equal Justice Society, said the election raises the specter of voters deciding to bar illegal immigrants from public schools, disenfranchising black voters or otherwise using the ballot box to promote segregation.
"The court ruled that to discriminate in the area of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and violated our guaranteed equality," Paterson said. "Why should a slim majority of Californians be able to put discrimination back into the California Constitution?"

------------------------------------------
Think about it for a second. If they had a shot at it, which civil rights court rulings would these people like to see overturned? And not just the people in the video, but the far more politically savvy people who get them "angried-up" and out at the polls? The people whose founders, favored politicians, and spokespersons have a peculiar habit of defending America's peculiar institution? The people who could conceivably mount a campaign to repeal civil rights rulings that they are "not against" but that are "no longer necessary"? (I'm just guessing how they might spin it.

Which would you like to see up for a vote:

• Brown v. Board of Education (school desegregation, major blow against "separate but equal")
• Roe v. Wade (reproductive freedom)
• Shelley v. Kramer (racially restrictive "covenants" in real estate - This one's definitely on Glady's list)
• Bailey v. Patterson (segregation in intrastate and interstate transportation)
• Batson v. Kentucky (basically says you can't put, say, a Black person on trial and exclude Black people from the jury)
• Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (defined "hostile work environment" as sexual harassment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
• Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. Inc. (same-sex harassment can be the basis for a sexual harassment claim)
• Romer v. Evans (overturned Colorado amendment prohibiting protection of LGBT rights)
• Lawrence v. Texas (decriminalized sodomy, overturned sodomy laws)
• Grisswold v. Connecticut (overturned law banning contraception, right to "marital privacy")
• And of course the major civil rights acts of
• • 1957 (established the Civil Rights Commission)
  • 1960 (federal inspection of voter registration polls)
  • 1964 (prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, and national origin)
  • 1968 (Fair Housing Act)

You could almost line them up chronologically and figure out how far people would like to turn back the clock if they could. In a very real sense, even if you're not gay, you could be "next" on their list.
Granted, we do not have anything like a national ballot initiative, yet. But there is a movement for one, supported by former presidential candidate Mike Gravel.
I don't know if it would open the door to putting civil rights to a majority vote, and I don't particulary want to find out. Neither, apparently, does the NAACP.