To summarize the plaintiffs position a little bit, what they are saying is that they believe that a) gays and lesbians are/should be a suspect class and that b) the proponents must prove their case accordingly. Now, I should point out that in In re Marriage Cases, the 2008 decision that made my marriage possible, the California Supreme Court said that sexual orientation is a suspect class under the California Constitution. That doesn't apply to the federal courts, who are interpreting the federal Constitution, but it is worth noting. However, no federal court has ruled that the federal Constitution does view sexual orientation as a suspect class. This case seeks to change that. It's a broadening of the law, but one that is reasonable considering recent jurisprudence.

The plaintiffs also suggest that if strict scrutiny isn't going to apply, then intermediate should. This is primarily used on gender cases, but there is sound legal argument on this front as a sort of midway point. And finally, they point to rational basis, the least favorable test, acknowledging their own burden under that situation.