Gay marriage supporters in Denver protest the passing of California’s Proposition 8 which defines marriage in the Golden State as between one man and one woman (Denver Post)

The Colorado Independent suggests Focus on the Family‘s financial support of California’s Proposition 8 was a contributing factor to recently announced layoffs at the Colorado Springs-based ministry. Focus was the seventh largest donor to the “Yes on 8″ campaign, donating $539,000 and providing $83,000 in non-monetary support, according to the Independent. Elsa Prince, a contributor to conservative political causes and a Focus board member, also contributed $450,000.

Focus’ founder James Dobson spoke at a pro-8 prayer rally in San Diego the weekend before the election, saying traditional marriage was “on the ropes.” Following the election, Focus issued a somewhat self-congratulatory statement patting itself on the back for its role in passing the measure and saying that enshrining the one man, one woman definition of marriage in state constitutions “helps protect millions of children from radical indoctrination in the homosexual lifestyle.”

In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, law professor Brian E. Gray finds another Colorado connection to the California proposition by equating the pending legal challenges to the measure with a proposition passed in Colorado in the 1990s that was eventually overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The current challenges to Prop 8 are process-based, says Gray, working under a theory that stripping same sex couples of the right to marry (a right granted in May when the Supreme Court of California invalidated an earlier statute banning gay marriage) is not an amendment to the constitution but a more sweeping constitutional revision that would require a two-thirds vote of the legislature prior to being put before voters. Though the current lawsuits are invoking the equal protection clause of the California constitution, Gray says Prop 8 opponents could follow the lead of opponents of Colorado’s Amendment 2 and take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Passed in 1992, Amendment 2 effectively barred any Colorado jurisdiction of passing laws to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. Writing for the majority in Romer v. Evans that invalidated Amendment 2 in 1996, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy quoted an earlier case:

If the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

Gay rights activists have been wary of bringing the issues of gay marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court for fear of suffering a precedent-setting defeat. But the lawsuits in state court — and the rhetoric of protesters following Prop 8′s passing — have turned the issue into a question about majority-rule tyranny over minority rights. But is marriage a protected right?

Gray opines:

Proposition 8 suffers these same constitutional flaws [as Amendment 2]. It provides that gays and lesbians — alone among consenting adult couples — shall not have the opportunity to enjoy the rights, privileges and social approbation conferred by the status of lawful marriage.

Gay marriage supporters protested across California and the nation (including Denver and Boulder ) this weekend in opposition to Prop 8′s passing.