The landmark trial currently before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has huge potential. The constitutional challenge to California’s anti-gay marriage statute passed by referendum in 2008 (a.k.a “Proposition 8″) started this past Monday, and is easily the most anticipated court challenge in the past few years. Everything is on the table and being discussed, from gay marriage to adoption, civil rights to biological science, Loving v. Virginia to Jones v. Hallahan. Many gay rights groups believe the trial is likely to have a positive impact on precedence for gay marriage laws; not just in California, but for other states as well.

The religious right’s strategy in these hearings? Go big or go home. The defendants have threatened to appeal to the United States Supreme Court if the trial isn’t decided in their favor. But is such a strategy really prudent for them?

One of the crowning achievements of our democracy is our system of justice. The United States Supreme Court is at the end of the road for any legal proceeding possible. It hears cases that can (and sometimes do) change the very framework that our nation is built on. Any decision by the court is binding and sets legal precedent that influences the direction of policy and legal decisions for years. The Supreme Court is the head of the household, if you will, and the underlings are the lower appellate courts that constitutional challenges and important appeals go to first. If the losing party appeals, they then move up the chain of courts until they finally get the case in front of the Supreme Court.

Right now, the Prop 8 constitutional challenge is currently in front of one of those subordinate appellate courts – the District Court for the Northern District of California. According to press reports and liveblogs inside the trial, it seems to be quite an interesting ride so far. Everything is on the table with Judge Vaughn Walker, and the plaintiffs are making a tremendous case. The defendants are, well, on the defensive, with news breaking recently of issues inside the defense team and members trying desperately to distance themselves from the trial. Not the best outlook for the State of California’s last hope at keeping traditional ‘opposite’ marriage. (Gasp!) A press release from the National Organization for Marriage [link is NSFYS: not safe for your sanity!] details their strategy if their case doesn’t go as hoped: “We’re in for a real fight to save traditional marriage. The trial court proceedings are expected to last for weeks. The case will then be appealed and, ultimately, will end up before the United States Supreme Court.” I find this to be an interesting strategy. Push the case to the highest court in the land – y’know, the court that has the potential to strike down laws across the country – and hope for a victory?

Let’s look at the numbers first. Nearly every national poll on gay marriage support is inconclusive – it’s up one year and down the next, and many polls have different numbers for the same topics. But let’s look at the OTHER numbers, the ones that can actually help us project the likelihood of gay marriage existing in most states within, say, my parents’ lifetimes. Firstly, gay marriage is vastly more popular with young people than it is amongst people of older generations. Gallup says that among people aged 65 and older, 32% are for gay marriage, with 66% against. Moving through the generations, there is a visible progression. People of 50-64 years are 37% for gay marriage, and 30-to-49-year-olds are 40% in favor. But in the country’s youngest age bracket of 18-29 years of age (i.e. the one that will be calling the shots in about 10-15 years), 59% are for, and 37% against (margin of sampling error +/- 3%). The Pew Forum has different numbers (a bit lower in favor for each age bracket) but that same progression of strong support in the younger age bracket is still evident. So it’s clear that the youth and Generation X are much more in favor of gay marriage then their older counterparts. And we all know what happens with new generations – they move in to replace the older ones. That will, without a doubt, make these polls show more support for gay marriage nationally over the next few years. As FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver says:

Civil unions have already achieved the support of an outright majority of Americans, and as those older voters are replaced by younger ones, the smart money is that gay marriage will reach majority status too at some point in the 2010’s.

Furthermore, there are even more not-so-good numbers for NOM. As the levels of religious influence in the general population fall, and the levels of atheists/agnostics/non-fundamentalists rise, numbers in favor of gay marriage will likely increase at a faster rate.

It seems that under these circumstances, NOM’s best bet for having their gay marriage-free world would be to stand still and do nothing. Seriously. The best bet for stalling a gay marriage bill is to leave it up to our always-adept lawmakers to legislate it. Everybody knows that the fastest way to kill something is to leave it to a State House (or, worse yet, the national Congress). So what if they lose California? They are taking on much bigger risks by sending the case to the Supreme Court, given the possible outcome. It would likely be irreversible at that point. You’d think they would want to sacrifice that, if it meant saving the rest of the nation. (The pro-America parts only, of course.) Perhaps their only saving grace is that the Supreme Court is composed entirely of oldness and Antonin Scalia’s gigantic head. The last thing they should want would be a repeal of DOMA, and sending this case to the Supreme Court could lead to that!

(Seriously though, why is there a National Organization for Marriage? Isn’t gay marriage inevitable already?)