[Old Professer]

Key sentence:

“...we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory
provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are
unconstitutional.”

Earlier they also stated that this conclusion states that the initiative process cannot be used to change any laws challenging this subject.

Of course the AG could still choose to end the official use of the word “marriage” and all such unions would then be properly called domestic partnerships; maybe that would restart the circus.

[Fishrrman]

“Earlier they also stated that this conclusion states that the initiative process cannot be used to change any laws challenging this subject”

I’m not in California and don’t know the ins and outs of the initiative process there, so, I’ll ask:
Can the initiative be used to amend the state Constitution?

If that is possible, and if Californians choose to amend their Constitution to define marriage (and to outlaw gay marriage) - how could ANY state court, even a “Supreme” one, declare the state’s own Constitutional provisions to be “unconstitutional”?

- John

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Of course the AG could still choose to end the official use of the word “marriage” and all such unions would then be properly called domestic partnerships"

I'm sure that California Attorney General Jerry Brown will be all over that.

[DrewsMum]

“...we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory
provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are
unconstitutional.”

Are they referring to the CA supreme ct or the SCOTUS? Forgive me if this was answered already...