There's some things that should be mentioned about American law - specifically as it relates to how persons identifying as a group petition the government.
We live in a society where the majority rules, but the minority is afforded certain rights. The civil rights era of the mid-20th century was all about recognizing these rights (as they emanate from the Constitution). Certain groups in particular are afforded closer interest by the government due to historical injustice, specifically race, religion, national origin, and sex. These four groups are known as SUSPECT CLASSES. Such groups are afforded different levels of judicial scrutiny under our system of law:
STRICT SCRUTINY: The highest (and most rigorous) level of judicial review, it is employed in cases where the law in question involves a matter of RACE, RELIGION, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.
Whenever a law must pass strict scrutiny, a three-pronged test is administered to the law:
1.) The law must serve a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST, along the lines of national security, among other reasons.
2.) The law must be NARROWLY TAILORED to achieve that governmental interest. In other words, the law must include wording that is neither too vague or over-encompassing.
3.) The law must use the LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS possible to achieve the governmental interest. So, a law can't set out to do one thing and, oh by the way, let's mandate a ban on cake while we're at it.
So, a law is unconstitutional if the court rules that it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling governmental interest". Questions involving race and national origin are considered "compelling".
INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY: The middle level of scrutiny applied by courts in matters of judicial review, it is employed in cases where the law in question involves a matter of SEX (gender), such as sexual discrimination.
A law can be said to pass intermediate scrutiny if it involves IMPORTANT GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS and achieves these interests by SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED MEANS.
RATIONAL-BASIS TEST: The default level of scrutiny used in cases where action by a law must be merely RATIONALLY RELATED to advance a LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST.
For example, the government may create a bank because such a creation is a reasonable way to regulate commerce. The government need only make ONE argument rationally-related to its purpose to pass this standard.
THIS IS WHERE LGBT PERSONS RESIDE - in the rational basis realm.
So, in summary, gay/lesbian persons are NOT considered a suspect class in the eyes of American jurisprudence, therefore cases involving claims by gays and lesbians aren't subjected to the same judicial standards as cases brought by African-Americans, religious groups, citizens of foreign origin, or men/women qua men/women.
All that a law must say is that it is a legitimate governmental interest to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman because such marriages are traditional and foster two-parent households (which is conducive to good child-rearing), according the the prevailing argumentation.
What the California Supreme Court SHOULD do is to recognize that marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Marriage is also a right guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore the right to marriage extends to all couples, including gays and lesbians.
The Court should ALSO declare Proposition 8, which seeks to amend the Constitution, as null and void. Why? Because the California Constitution itself AND the U.S. Constitution (which extends to the states) guarantee that "life, LIBERTY, and property" cannot be infringed without due process of law. A referendum CANNOT deprive a citizen of BASIC rights EVER, not even a referendum that proposes a Constitutional amendment.
Marriage is a basic right, emanating from the liberty guarantees in the Constitution.
I predict that the Court will overturn the referendum results as an unconstitutional infringement of basic rights.
That is a little disheartening. Hopefully they'll come around before their decision is due and realize that there is only one right answer according to the constitution. The ban is unconstitutional plain and simple.
You make an excellent point. It's as if the author was referring to those "wacky Europeans", always doing that crazy progressive stuff, instead of pointing out that MOST of the other "civilized" nations recognize same sex marriages. 
