>>8
You act as if you think the system is not designed to maintain itself against capricious change. I would have been concerned if the judge - in face of the Fourteenth Amendment and in addition to prior invalidation of the equity of a situation that can described as "separate but equal" - sided with Prop 8. What a terrible judge, putting popularity before precedence! Imagine the arguments: "the Constitution does not permit people to marry whomever they consent to and get consent from" or "a situation where equal accommodations are made but different labels are used does not constitute separate." It was the right of the people to bring such a position to their state for passage; it was the right of the courts to rule against that position in light of superior laws.
If the movement is truly equitable, or is convincingly so, then continued push and law passage and contest will vet the required amount of representative authority to pass a change to the hitherto mentioned superior law (the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights?).