If this stands then all states must permit gay marriage, as a Constitutional right?
It probably guarantees a Republican sweep in the Fall election, and quite possibly even the weakening of the Democrat lock on California's Hispanics.
The risk for the gay blades who take advantage of the injunction is that if it is lifted, and his is appealed, their marriages just disappear. Of course that's not really a risk for them since they'll just go to the nearest gay bar for dates, as per usual.
Where in The Constitution is marriage mentioned?
There is no constitutional right to marriage.
No, it means that as of 2:00 PM Pacific Time, gay marriage is legal again in California. The rulings in other states banning gay marriage are not affected by this decision until and unless it reaches the SCOTUS.
Its the slippery slope again. Government assigns an automatic legal status to marriage (like a contract) then government confers perks on those that engage in that legal status (tax deductions, social security benefits etc.) then the courts rule everyone must be allowed to engage in that legal status under the equal protection clause.
Social engineering at its finest and a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences.
No, this decision only applies to this particular statute. And, a District Court decision IS NOT precedent for other courts, in fact it's not even precedent for this court - just these plaintiffs and these questions of law.
For this to have precedential value nationally, it will have to be affirmed by the Supreme Court.