The Sexual Orientation and the Law Blog comments saying "The court explains that the marriage statutes must be subjected to strict scrutiny on two bases:

(1) because they impinge on a the fundamental right to marriage; and

(2) because sexual orientation is a suspect class.

"The second reason, that sexual orientation is a suspect class, is a very significant point, as there are very few courts that have recognized sexual orientation as a suspect classification (and the Supreme Court has not done so when interpreting the U.S. Constitution, either)."

"Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand."

In Re Marriage Cases, Case No. S147999 (Supreme Court of California) at page 120

The California Supreme Court was split 4-3 on this issue of gay marriage. Domestic partnerships for same-sex couples were of course already available in California before this decision. What this decision does is to make it possible for them to "marry," writes magnezium.blogspot.com.