This thread is troubling to me because it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of separation of powers, which by the way has equal if not greater constitutional credibility than the God-nexus alluded to by so many.
The judicial branch of government is not designed to bend to public opinion. The place for public redress in government is the executive and legislative branches. That is why we saw the photo-ops of Congress and Pres. Bush yesterday denouncing the decision and promising to "do something about it."
The Ninth Circuit in this case was the first court of judicial review after the case was dismissed at the district court (entry) level. Hardly the last word on the issue. As you pointed out, there will likely be an en banc review meaning that all of the justices of the 9th circuit will convene to re-hear the case. I imagine they'll correct the decision at that level, but if not, then surely at the SC level. However, even if the Supremes upheld the decision, then the Legislature would probably sieze on the opportunity to act, particularly in this fevered patriotic zeitgest.
This decision is no justification for an attempt to short-circuit our constitutional system of checks and balances even though it may not satisfy our popular need for immediate gratification. One of the reasons our constitution has worked so well for so long is due to its inherent procedural pause.
That is a fundamental truth, and it is not fully appreciated by most people, including many conservatives here. A lot of frustration is frequently expressed that decades of liberalism weren't immediately repealed in January of 2001.
The Constitution has an enormous amount of checks and balances which prevent the Ship of State from making sharp turns. This is deliberate and it's beneficial, although it is often a source of consternation for those who want immediate change.