Constitution of the United State of America :: 1776-2009
The majority can oppress the minority again.
This ruling doesn't suggest that the U.S. Constitution has died, or even that it has been compromised. The U.S. Constitution hasn't had anything to do with this case thusfar. The U.S. Constitution, in the form of a federal court ruling, hasn't had a say in this particular case yet.
This was the California Supreme Court saying that they can't decide what the California Constitution can say, because they (the California Supreme Court) are subordinate to the California Constitution. In general, they are right about that. The issue before them had nothing to do with whether or not this provision conforms with the U.S. Constitution.
However, the U.S. Constitution is not sub-ordinate to the California Constitution, and I suspect that this issue will proceed to a federal court in order that the conformity of this provision of the California Constitution with the U.S. Constitution can be tested. Who knows what the ultimate ruling on that will be, but whatever it is, it hasn't been rendered yet.
If the people of the United States legally amended the U.S. Constitution to say that only people over 60 get to vote - the U.S. Supreme Court would have no authority to strike that down. Even if they thought it was unfair, their only right would be to interpret what it means, not say that it is unconstitutional -
because it would be in the Constitution. SCOTUS is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution. It's the same thing in this situation with the California Supreme Court (although there were some technical arguments about the way it got in the California Constitution - that was the only issue before the Court in this case).
The essential question answered by this ruling really has nothing to do with same-sex marriage rights.