The ruling doesn’t void current gay marriages, but it clearly demonstates that a constitutional amendment is basically the only way to go:

The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.

The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

Although the court split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election. The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May.

Justice Ronald M. George, writing for the majority, said Proposition 8 did “not entirely repeal or abrogate” same-sex couples’ right to privacy and due process or the “constitutional right of same-sex couples to ‘choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship.’

“Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights.”

Now, you can see where the left is coming from on this subject, even judges on the CA Supreme Court. Gay marriage, to them, is a “right”. Nevermind that they already have the same marriage rights as straight people do (they can get married to a person of the opposite sex, just like we can*), they want extra rights on top of it, i.e., the right to marry whoever/whatever they want and have it recognized and subsidized by the state and federal governments.

Make no mistake, these judges wanted to overturn Prop. 8, but couldn’t because of the way it was worded. The irony is they did manage to find a flaw or two in the wording that allowed them to say that already existing marriages were ok, when that wasn’t the goal of the amendment.

Naturally, the activists will appeal to a federal court. This being in the Ninth Circus (yes, I used that term on purpose), they’ll probably get it overturned, and then the anti-gay marriage groups will appeal to SCOTUS. And guess what that will mean, with a new liberal Justice of two on the bench?

*That’s not the reason I oppose gay marriage. I oppose it because 1) I feel that it’s morally wrong (nothing to do with religion, as I’ve said time and time again I’m not a particularly religious person) and 2) I feel it’s just a front issue that the left is pushing to gain power and control, and my natural reaction to those who do that is to oppose them. They do the same thing with issues like global warming, the environment, affirmative action (which is just a fancy way of saying reverse discrimination), and so on. They really could care less about these problems (to be fair, some of them do care a great deal, and for the right reasons), they just use them as an excuse to impose their views and beliefs on us.

We give in on this gay marriage business, they’ll be back in ten years with yet another demand. And another ten years after that for another.