Just noting that I like how IANAL spells “I anal”. But shouldn’t that apply to the lawyers? We should say “I not anal.”
But then what about people who aren’t lawyers, but still want to be anal? 
No, it doesn’t seem reasonable, for the reasons Otto correctly identifies in post #15. The issues involved rest on state law and do not invoke a federal question. A new action seeking federal DP or EP same-sex marriage could reach the Supreme Court, but it would have essentially zero involvement with a challenge to the validity of an amendment to the California constitution that sought to reverse the effects of the recent California state Supreme Court ruling.
I think we’ll have to leave this at “wanna bet?”, and come back next year.
Hardly. If there’s no federal question involved, SCOTUS cannot entertain jurisdiction; end of story. If they want a test case, they’ll pick one where jurisdiction is not in question and rule broadly.
I don’t think the California Legislature is back in session until after the November election, so this can not be done.