Despite the California Supreme Court's Tuesday decision to uphold Proposition 8, supporters and opponents of the initiative are saying the battle over same-sex marriage is far from finished.

Same-sex marriage advocacy groups said they are already are preparing to draft an initiative slated for the 2010 ballots to legalize gay marriage, while Prop. 8 supporters are pledging to continue educational campaigns and legally defend the initiative.

Just a day after the court's 6-1 vote that found the amendment included in Prop. 8 did not violate the California Constitution, two high-profile lawyers filed a lawsuit in the federal district court against the state, arguing that the initiative violated the U.S Constitution.

"This unequal treatment of gays and lesbians denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution," according to the suit.

One of the two couples represented in the suit is from Berkeley.

In response to the suit, Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage, said in a statement that the suit attacks the will of the voters, who passed Prop. 8 by simple majority.

"Someone needs to defend Prop. 8 and we will," he said in a interview.

The proposition passed in the November 4 election with 52 percent of the vote.

Boalt Hall Professor Herma Hill Kay called the suit "gutsy" and said a federal suit would be more difficult than a state suit because the obligation to prove rights had been violated falls heavily on the plaintiffs.

Legal experts are saying that one of the more viable options for same-sex supporters to overturn Prop. 8 is to put a measure on the 2010 ballot that would amend California's constitution to legalize gay marriage.

Pamela Brown, policy director for Marriage Equality USA, said pro same-sex marriage organizations are convening to collaborate and plan the language of the initiative.

"It could repeal Prop. 8. It could also focuses on expanding California's constitutional protections so that it takes more than a majority to take away rights," she said. "There needs to be some quick but deliberate focus on what the type of initiative our community of a whole wants to move on."

In the initial suit, supporters of same-sex marriage argued that the initiative was a revision, which would require a two-thirds vote to pass. But the court ruled that Prop. 8 amended the constitution and only needed a simple majority to pass.

Kay said if same-sex marriage supporters were able to place a measure on the 2010 ballot, it would also be an amendment.

"The people did it this time with a majority vote, the people can do it next with time with a majority vote," she said.

Given the relative ease in amending California's constitution through propositions compared with other states, Boalt Hall professor Joan Hollinger said she believed the ban on same-sex marriage may not hold long if same-sex supporters place a measure on the 2010 ballot.

"I don't think it's going to last very long if you look at a four to 10 year horizon," she said.

At Tuesday's announcement of the ruling, many Prop. 8 supporters said the judges were right in preserving the amendment.

"The judges said that we are going to uphold the will of the people, regardless whether a small minority of the people like the way it came out," said George Riley, a student from American River College who was present at the announcement.

Ruth Borenstein, who was one of the plaintiffs in the original suit that came before the court, said the politics involved in the battle of same-marriage are misguided.

"This is not just a political tug of war," she said. "This is about real people. This is about my life, my partner's life."

Tags: PROPOSITION 8, CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT