And here is why. Court decisions are always so much clearer than the media interpretations of the court decisions.
According to the document linked above, California had already given same-sex couples legal benefits identical to those given to married couples. The only difference was the name of the legal relationship. Therefore, California courts decided that it was unconstitutional to deny the name of “marriage” to domestic partnerships.
Then Prop 8 came along. From the court opinion: “According to the official voter information guide, Proposition 8 ‘[c]hanges the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.'” This was a right which was already recognized by the courts and the California Constitution. The question was not whether to *allow* same-sex couples to marry – that had already been decided, and the answer was yes. The question was, instead, can we take away a right which has already been recognized? The arguments of Prop 8’s supporters failed to give any good reasons why this right should be taken away. For example, some of the things they mentioned were invalidated because California same-sex couples had the same status as opposite-sex couples under the law regardless of what happened with Prop 8.
So, it stands that the California Constitution recognizes the right of same-sex couples to marry, and Prop 8 is unconstitutional. To which I say, of course! Regardless of anyone’s personal beliefs (thoughts, opinions) on the matter, legally there is no reason to take the already-recognized right away.
Now, whether it is unconstitutional under the US Constitution when considered alone, or any other state’s constitution, is another matter entirely, and will probably be decided in the courts later on. But in California…it’s decided.