Let the blabber start on the Marriage cases

This blog is for ethical lawyers only.  As an ethical lawyer, you will have already read In re Marriage Cases (if you did not, you are not ethical). If you have not read that case, then you are not an ethical lawyer and rather than breath air like a mammal, you malpractice. 

Anyway, Bill Mears of CNN reports that:

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. The federal high court has never addressed the question of same-sex marriage.

Why did he say that? Did the California Supreme Court rely on the United States constitution?  Did Mr. Mears even read the case?

Well, did he at least read Footnote 28:

Plaintiffs base their constitutional challenge in this case solely upon the
provisions of the California Constitution and do not advance any claim under the
federal Constitution. (See Cal. Const., art. I, § 24 [“Rights guaranteed by this
Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States
Constitution”].)

So, why does he think that an “appeal” to the United States Supreme Court is likely?  How could someone rise to the exalted rank of “producer” at CNN without at least quoting footnote 28?