The one thing that seems clear in the wake of last week's approval of Proposition 8 is that the emotional issue isn't going away anytime soon. And to understand the murkiness of what should, or shouldn't, happen... look no further than Governor Schwarzenegger.

In an interview with CNN this weekend, the governor called the passage of Prop 8 "unfortunate" and predicted the proposal may ultimately fail in the courts. "We will maybe undo that," he said, "if the court is willing to do that... and then lead in that area."

A casual observer could be forgiven if left with the impression that Schwarzenegger is strongly pro-gay marriage. On the contrary, his position... at times confusing and perhaps symbolic of the conflicted feelings of many... has been hard to pin down over the years.

The only way to describe his stance may be this: a personal opposition to same sex unions, but a professional laissez faire approach.

Consider the careful line Schwarzenegger walked in the winter of 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing same-sex marriage licenses. In condemning the action, the governor focused on Newsom... not the issue itself.

But at the same time, he was using verbage that sounded much more like an endorsement of a legal ban. Consider his official statement in the wake of Newsom's action: "Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex-marriage [Proposition 22, the 2000 initiative defining the state's view of marriage]. I support that law and encourage San Francisco officials to obey that law."

Still, it was always unclear who Schwarzenegger thought should have the final say. Appearing on The Tonight Show in May 2004, the governor said, "Let the court decide." But he then quickly added: "Let the people decide."

That same month, he told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle: "When the people vote, people are not legal experts, constitutional experts or any of that," he said. "I think that's why we have the courts."

A few months later, in an interview with me in his Capitol office, Schwarzenegger again seemed ambivalent. "It's a decision made by the people," he said. He then hesitated for a moment, adding: "And by the courts... I support whatever the law is."

Schwarzenegger would later veto multiple legislative attempts to legalize gay marriages, saying only the courts could overturn an initiative like Prop 22.

When Prop 8 made its way onto the ballot, the governor made headlines for telling a group of gay Republicans he not only opposed it... but "will always be there to fight against that."

Many took that as a sign Schwarzenegger would actively campaign against Prop 8. He furthered such speculation in an interview with KCRA-TV in Sacramento this past May. "I defnitely will be actively speaking out against it," he said.

But in the same interview, in response to the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriages, the governor said this: "I never wanted to overturn the will of the people [in Prop 22]."

As we now know, Schwarzenegger was all but invisible on Prop 8 this fall, with only his image appearing in a final TV ad appeal by the opposition.

The governor's path through the political minefield over gay marriage doesn't offer much guidance for others. He will no doubt be asked to clarify his position in the days and weeks ahead, now that legal challenges to Prop 8 are underway, and opponents of the ban are taking to the streets in ever growing numbers. And the issue presents enormous political challenges for the moderate Republican governor. After all, the vote was very close. And the issue could bleed into other policy debates in 2009 with both parties... just consider his need to forge some kind of compromise with the conservative wing of the state GOP over California's ever worsening fiscal climate.

Every good pollster will tell you that a poll is merely a snapshot in time. That may mean no one should read too much into today's Field Poll showing a slim majority of Californians now support same sex marriages. After all, opinions change.

But another argument may be made that this is far from a fleeting development, as support for the idea has slowly but measurably grown. And that theory can be backed up by more than 30 years of surveying on the issue by respected pollsters Mervin Field and Mark DiCamillo.

Today's headline is clearly the poll results showing 51% of voters surveyed approve of gay marriages, while 42% oppose them. The poll will be online here later today.

But beyond that is some fascinating data about how the issue has changed over time. First, the historical context. In this poll, and six others dating back to 1977, Field asked the following question (used verbatim every time in the past 31 years):

Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them?

Only 28% of adults agreed with that statement in 1977. By 1997, it was 38%. In 2004, 44% of voters agreed. Today, it's eeked over the majority line at 51%.

So what's going on? No definitive answers, but some reasonable theories:

1. Young vs. Old: The generation gap on this issue is now enormous. Field's new poll finds those between the ages of 18 and 39 strongly favor same sex marriages, while those 65 and over strongly reject them.

2. Urban vs. Rural: The familiar schism in California politics is holding true on this issue. Los Angeles and the Bay Area approve in the new poll, while voters in the Central Valley and Inland Empire generally do not. The divide is roughly the same when breaking the state down by coastal counties versus inland ones.

3. Religion: In one of the more controversial and murky areas of the poll, more Catholics and Protestants surveyed disapprove than approve. And those describing themselves as born-again Christians strongly reject the concept, 68%-24%.

As you might expect, the other big attention-getter in this poll is the fact that the likely November intiative to amend the state constitution and ban gay marriage looks to be in trouble before it even qualifies for the ballot. Regardless of how the question was asked (and it was asked two different ways), at least 51% of registered voters said they oppose such a plan. Field notes that the findings mirror other surveys on whether the issue should be amended into the U.S. Constitution -- perhaps that major step is the problem.

But one particular item stands out in my quick analysis, and it's the growing acceptance of same sex marriage among California's new power players in state politics: the indepedent "decline to state" voters. In Field's August 2003 survey on the issue, just 50% of these voters said they approved of gay marriages. This time around, support among decline to state respondents is at 61%.

Remember, this is the single fastest growing group of California voters -- now almost 20%. This is also the group that has been closely tied to the political fortunes of Governor Schwarzenegger, who has said he will oppose the initiative if it makes it to the ballot. The convention wisdom is that most Democrats support same sex marriage and most Republicans oppose it. But the real action, to borrow a phrase from the guv, is with non-partisan voters. And they may hold the key to whether California takes the national lead on this issue in November... one way or the other.

"I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

That's the official statement from Governor Schwarzenegger after this morning's announcement by the California Supreme Court that same sex couples have the same rights to marriage as do heterosexual couples.

The 4-3 decision is sure to dominate the state's airwaves and newspapers for the next few days; the ruling takes effect in 30 days and it's reasonable to assume that thousands of gay couples will be applying for marriage licenses at that time.

Setting aside the decision and the details of the issue for a moment, let's consider the politics.

Public opinion polls have found some changes in the attitudes of Californians about the issue of same sex marriage in recent years... with what appears to be more support than existed when Proposition 22 passed in 2000.

Prop 22 was focused on state statute and not the California Constitution -- hence, it's a little tangential to the high court's ruling today. It's also a tangent to the initiative that voters may be asked to weigh in on this November: an actual amendment to the state constitution to ban same sex marriage... in other words, a cancellation of today's legal victory for gay couples.

But it's not tangential to the politics, with many seeing all of this as a cultural battle. The new initiative appears to be a lock to qualify for the ballot. And that raises the likelihood that it will dominate what's going to be an already crowded ballot. As his above statement makes clear, Schwarzenegger has firmly stated his opposition to the anti-gay marriage initiative. That puts him, once again, at odds with his conservative GOP brethren.

But will he campaign against the measure? Or better yet, how broad a coalition will arise to challenge conservative supporters? How will the political campaign influence the race for the White House (California is, after all, the big enchilada when it comes to electoral votes)? How might the debate shape the political future of possible gubernatorial candidates... in particular, the gentleman from San Francisco?

There are many, many layers of political intrigue here. And the ink is barely dry on the historic ruling.

For complete coverage of today's ruling, tune in to KQED Public Radio this afternoon for a half hour special news report, and more coverage tomorrow on The California Report.