Updated with a video report from the AP below
From Volokh
The opinion is Here (pdf), via Howard. The holding:
We . . . conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.
Applying strict scrutiny to the California marriage statute, the court concludes that:
[T]he purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest. . . . Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.
Update: Although I have huge problem with this ruling as is seems as though our Justices here in Ca have undefined marriage there are two things we Californians can take some comfort in:
1) We will have a constitutional amendment on the ballot come Nov. where we'll have a chance to vote on this issue and overturn this decision.
2) Californians overwhelmingly voted against this very issue in 2000 so this ruling and it's consequences won't last too long!








Can you tell me now why it was the federal government had to raid that polygamists' compound in Texas? Because it seems to me y'all have just said maintaining any sort of definition of marriage other than "whatever it is I want now" is de facto unconstitutional. So, what's wrong with polygamy? Bigamy? Wedding my first cousin (who is H-O-T, by the way)?
Is it that those Texas people had some sort of "icky religion thing" going on? Can't have that now, eh?
So let me get this straight - if I want to marry my penguin, assuming I can demonstrate said penguin's consent, I now have a constitutional right to do so in California?
Wow, I'll bet the framers of the "equal protection clause" of the constitution never saw that coming.
---------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.