Here's the decision from the California Supreme Court, in which the divided Court declared that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection clause of the state constitution - notwithstanding the statewide referendum on the definition of marriage from only eight years ago.
I am reminded of my post from Election Day, 2004, relating a discussion I had with a guy I know as he was driving to vote, and "[h]e said he would flip the switch for Bush, even though he is mostly a Democrat, and even though he mostly aspires to Christian charity and good will, because there are two things he can't abide, and those are gay marriage and Arab terrorists. (Actually, his phrasing was somewhat more colorful, and it made me recollect the comedian who declares, there are three things I can't tolerate: bigotry, intolerance, and midgets.)"
And this post on the eve of the election in 2006, explaining my "no" vote, and offering this view - "I think most of the claims of both the "yes" and "no" advocates in Virginia were completely bogus, and that many of the people engaged in such advocacy knew full well that were they were saying was bogus but said it anyway to try to get votes for their side."
There's much that's bogus in that California Supreme Court opinion.