Hman:

The problem with this decision is that it descriminates against all of the major religions in CA as well as the world that hold the belief that "Holy Matrimony" is between a man and a woman.

No, it doesn't. The court specifically held that, as a result of this decision, "... no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 4)." See page 117 of the pdf version of the opinion at:

<link>

So, the court decision has no effect whatsoever on the practices, much less the beliefs, of any religious person.

Hman:

It also flies in the face of the majority of Californians who stated in their approval of the ballot initiative that marriage was between a man and a woman forcing a constitutional amendment within the state.

Fortunately, we have long since passed the point at which the individual liberties of some people can be denied simply because a majority of people think it is okay to do so. We fought the bloodiest war in the history of this country in large part to affirm the proposition that individual rights are not dependent on the consent of other people, not even if they constitute a majority.

Remember these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." From Wikipedia article at: <link>

I see nothing there which justifies a majority of people of any state (or, for that matter, all of the states) in denying to a minority group of people a right which the majority enjoys. Nor is there anything in the Constitutions of the United States or the State of California which would support denying people the right to join in a same sex marriage if they choose to do so.