Some rather interesting implications might be drawn from this ruling. For example, what do we now call the document the state issues to permit a couple to "establish an officially recognized family relationship?"The excellent diary by Seneca Doane lays out the fact that the decision really guts the intent of Proposition 8. While this is still unaccepatible, it does open the way for some interesting tactics until a repeal can be passed.
It would seem that although heterosexual couples can still call theirs "marriage," the state is not allowed to differentiate and the document must be called something other than a "marriage certificate" in order to fulfill the "state constitutional rights of privacy and due process." Legally this officially recognized family relationship must be the same for all couples and cannot itself be designated marriage.
This seems fundamentally different to me that the concept of a "civil union," which inherently bestows a more limited set of rights and privileges. Here the court explicitly says that the legal content of the officially recognized relationship must be the same in all cases or it does not comply with the constitutional right to privacy and due process. This includes things like the right to visit one's spouse in the hospital, to inherit property and many of those things that are not covered by "civil unions." This is going to turn out to be hugely embarrassing for the Prop 8 pushers. Of course no one on the TV machine--including Jonathan Turley--had yet picked up on this little detail, but I'm waiting for someone who does to initiate litigation to get the state to rename the basic legal relationship, binding on ALL unions, even those that are allowed to call theirs marriage, in order to fulfill the mandate of the court's decision for legal equality. I'd love to see the headline "Proposition 8 Killed Marriage in California."
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.