It was a 4-3 decision - not a unanimous one - here a dissent opens:

The power of a state to regulate and control the basic social relationship of marriage of its domiciliaries is here challenged and set at nought by a majority order of this court arrived at not by a concurrence of reasons but by the end result of four votes supported by divergent concepts not supported by authority and in fact contrary to the decisions in this state and elsewhere.

This protest against the court changing the traditional definition of marriage in California over the will of the people is, however, 60 years old - when teh California Supreme court became the first in the nation to declare the law prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional

The case was Perez v. Sharp - 1948

In this proceeding in mandamus, petitioners seek to compel the
County Clerk of Los Angeles County to issue them a certificate of
registry (Civ. Code, § 69a) and a license to marry. (Civ. Code,
§ 69.) In the application for a license, petitioner Andrea Perez
states that she is a white person and petitioner Sylvester Davis
that he is a Negro. Respondent refuses to issue the certificate and
license, invoking Civil Code, section 69, which provides: "... no
license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person
with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race."

Civil Code, section 69, implements Civil Code, section 60, which
provides: "All marriages of white persons with negroes, Mongolians,
members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void."

Also on the ballot will be a vote to amend the state constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman making California the 27th state with such a constitutional amendment. The petition already has over 1 million signatures.

As I posted on another thread....here's a bit of info from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes -- provides that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes."

...saying that marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race?

On what rational basis should we people deny recognition as partners in matrimony on the basis of orientation but not on the basis of race?

JGC:

...saying that marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race?

On what rational basis should we people deny recognition as partners in matrimony on the basis of orientation but not on the basis of race?

Question is what would I vote for? That marriage is between a man and a woman....YES, I did already. So did Californians.

Nanotech:

JGC:

...saying that marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race?

On what rational basis should we people deny recognition as partners in matrimony on the basis of orientation but not on the basis of race?

Question is what would I vote for? That marriage is between a man and a woman....YES, I did already. So did Californians.

No the question was if Californians voted to deny marriage based on race that would be acceptable to you? If not, then how is this any different?

Uncle_Spike:

Nanotech:

JGC:

...saying that marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race?

On what rational basis should we people deny recognition as partners in matrimony on the basis of orientation but not on the basis of race?

Question is what would I vote for? That marriage is between a man and a woman....YES, I did already. So did Californians.

No the question was if Californians voted to deny marriage based on race that would be acceptable to you? If not, then how is this any different?

This is fun....how about marriage between humans and animals or brothers and sisters or maybe mother and son how about grandmother and grandson? How about polygamy, how many animals allow in a poligimist marriage? Just think of all the possibilities!!!!!!!!!!!

Nanotech:

This is fun....how about marriage between humans and animals or brothers and sisters or maybe mother and son how about grandmother and grandson? How about polygamy, how many animals allow in a poligimist marriage? Just think of all the possibilities!!!!!!!!!!!

Just think of all the strawmen you keep coming up with to avoid answering a straightforward question yet again Nano. Typical.

Nanotech:

JGC:

...saying that marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race?

On what rational basis should we people deny recognition as partners in matrimony on the basis of orientation but not on the basis of race?

Question is what would I vote for? That marriage is between a man and a woman....YES, I did already. So did Californians.

Nano's Rumsfeldian answer, dodging the real question, may hint at some hope for us yet. With any luck, in a couple of generations his ilk will be equally uncomfortable addressing their history of gay-bashing as they are now uncomfortable addressing their history of anti-miscegenation.

No decision or law, be it by legislature or court, is absolute and eternal. Take Roe v. Wade, or Prohibition, for examples. The same risk exists for gay-marriage bans. Even one put in the state or even federal Constitution can be nullified in the future. Anti-miscegenation laws were upheld in 1886 by the Supreme Court, and later shot down by the court in 1967.

We take it for granted now, but it's instructive on this civil rights battle for our generation.

Nanotech:

Uncle_Spike:

Nanotech:

JGC:

...saying that marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race?

On what rational basis should we people deny recognition as partners in matrimony on the basis of orientation but not on the basis of race?

Question is what would I vote for? That marriage is between a man and a woman....YES, I did already. So did Californians.

No the question was if Californians voted to deny marriage based on race that would be acceptable to you? If not, then how is this any different?

This is fun....how about marriage between humans and animals or brothers and sisters or maybe mother and son how about grandmother and grandson? How about polygamy, how many animals allow in a poligimist marriage? Just think of all the possibilities!!!!!!!!!!!

why don't try to answer the question asked of you instead of dancing around the bush in order to put off answering?

Uncle_Spike:

Nanotech:

JGC:

...saying that marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race?

On what rational basis should we people deny recognition as partners in matrimony on the basis of orientation but not on the basis of race?

Question is what would I vote for? That marriage is between a man and a woman....YES, I did already. So did Californians.

No the question was if Californians voted to deny marriage based on race that would be acceptable to you? If not, then how is this any different?

Well it's been fun dancing with you guys but to answer the question: Marriage traditionally around the world has been reserved to be between a man and a woman. This is to publicly/legally recognize "the family unit" which is the bases of civilization. It has no other purpose and should not be used to ease the conscience of deviants.

Let me repeat the question:

On what rational basis should we people deny recognition as partners in matrimony on the basis of orientation but not on the basis of race?

I'm sure you would vote against recognition of same sex marriage, just as whites in Georgia and Mississippi would have voted in favor of separate but equal public accommodation and aganst recognition of inter-racial marriage in the middle of the past century. That doesn't speak to whether or not what you'd vote in favor or is either constitutional nor ethical.

Avoiding a direct question, because the answer either a) demonstrates your argument is invalid or b) reveals you to be a bigot is a lot of things, but fun isn't one of them.

and a disgrace to teh gay.

Can you imagine the Governator explaining to the straight citizens of Califorinia that they couldt marry any more, but could get "civil unions" :))

This civil union crap is just that - crap

Which is what the court really said

I'm sure that as a good christian in Georgia Nano DID oppose interracial marriage - it's just those activist judges have made it moot.