It has only been a few weeks since the controversial ban on same sex marriage was upheld by the California Supreme Court but Prop. 8 is already back under the judicial spotlight and bringing former rivals together.
It was obvious when the State Supreme Court ruled in favor of maintaining the law that banned same sex marriage that that was not the last any of us would hear of Prop 8.
But just a little over a month since that court ruling, Prop 8 has entered the courtroom once again. But this time it is in a federal courtroom.
Theodore Olson represented President George W. Bush in the case that decided the 2000 election and he went on to work as Bush's solicitor general.
But Olson isn't taking the conservative point of view when it comes to same sex marriage and the rights of his four plaintiffs. The man working alongside him is the same man who argued opposite him in 2000. David Boies represented Al Gore after the election but now he is working for same sex marriage.
"To tell them to wait is unacceptable," he said. "When someone is losing their constitutional rights, their civil rights, their fundamental rights, their right to be treated equally under the law every single day, telling them to wait is unacceptable."
Welcome to "Perry versus Schwarzenegger," a federal case that ultimately may land the ballot measure that banned same sex marriage in the hands of the United States Supreme Court.
"I think Californians should be troubled by the fact that their decision on this important matter continues to be challenged," Andy Pugno, a lawyer arguing for Prop. 8, said.
In court Thursday both sides agreed to a speedy, yet comprehensive trial, which will create a record for the future appeals that, will inevitably follow.
"If it gets to the Supreme Court this will be Roe vs. Wade for marriage," said Prop. 8 Campaign Spokesman Frank Schubert.
Judge Vaughn Walker decided not to grant a preliminary injunction Thursday that would have allowed gay couples to marry while the case winds its way through the court system.
Walker said allowing the marriages to start again would only bring the same uncertainty that couples felt back in 2004 when San Francisco performed marriages that were later nullified.
"My clients would prefer the uncertainty of the outcome of this case than the certainty of everyday immediate irreparable injury," Olson said.
Some same sex activists say that they were waiting to bring their case to the Supreme Court until some new and more liberal members were added to the bench.
But while this case goes on an effort to put the issue back on the ballot continues.