Reply #7: What I meant . . .

[gratuitous]

Is that when the 18,000 marriages were entered into, it wasn't against the law (the California State Constitution as amended by the passage of Prop 8) for the couples who got married. Now that the California Supreme Court has ruled that Prop 8 is a proper amendment to the state constitution, no same sex marriages entered into after Prop 8's effective date are legal.

In addressing the marriages that took place between the time the legislature passed the law allowing same sex marriage and the people changed the constitution disallowing same sex marriage, the California court ruled that those 18,000 couples did a legal act at the time they did it (they walked on the grass on Tuesday, walking on the grass became illegal on Wednesday). The analogy isn't perfect, of course, because as you say the responsibilities, rights and benefits of being married continue even after the passage of Prop 8 for the lucky 18,000. But as far as the action of getting married is concerned, it wasn't unconstitutional at the time. Maybe a better analogy would have to do with a new Prohibition in that you could get rip-roaring drunk on Tuesday, have alcohol become illegal on Wednesday, and still be drunk from Tuesday's bender. Not that I have any personal experience with such a thing, but I've heard stories.