Roberts might be right that they don’t usually allow this, but it makes no sense to call for a lack of standing.
If the PEOPLE of a state have the right to amend their constitution, which they clearly do in California, then the PEOPLE of the state should directly have standing to defend their constitutional amendment against claims that it violates the federal constitution.
Oddly, given that Roberts went out of his way to give deference to the legislative branch in his Obamacare ruling, I would expect that he would reject the constitutional question here, and let the congress have it’s way. And I would expect he would cite all the recent “We are for gay marriage” pronouncements by elected representatives as a clear indication that there is nothing stopping the congress, or a state, from approving gay marriage if they want.
The CA State AG really is the source of the standing issue.
After Prop 8 was passed and became part of the CA Constitution, the 9th Circuit [actually just 1 judge] overturned it. BTW: The judge who overturned it is gay ...
The CA AG then declined to appeal it - something he is SUPPOSED to do for the people. Prop 8 proponents then went to the CA Supreme Court and it found that they did have standing when the CA AG declines.
Prop 8 proponents then went to the 9th Circuit and asked for an en banc hearing. It declined and pooch-punted it directly to SCOTUS.
If the CA AG had stood up for the people and appealed, like he is supposed to do, standing would not be an issue at SCOTUS today.
Roberts’ boyfriend has a ringside seat.