Regis, this is indeed an appalling abuse of judicial authority, but it hardly comes as a surprise. Certainly not in California. Traditional marriage has been teetering on the edge of political and moral collapse in the Golden State for several years now. The San Francisco mayor started his own rebellion a few years ago, and I believe Gov. Schwarzenegger has already vetoed a couple of bills that would have accomplished some or all of what the court has now done.
What is perhaps more distressing, though, is that the statute being overturned by the court is one that was affirmed by a large majority of California voters in 2000. Not that popular opinion is the final arbiter of right and wrong, but it's at least as legitimate as the opinion of four judges.
As for the ruling itself, it seems to be full of the same contrived logic the Supreme Judicial Court used to alter the definition of marriage in Massachusetts (incidentally, though the Massachusetts decision is mentioned repeatedly, it is almost exclusively to note it as the exception to U.S. marriage law). The legal argument is all over the place, and certainly not convincing that such a vast constitutional breach exists. And the extensive moral argument simply restates the notions that traditional marriage is discriminatory out of date and that people should have the "right" to marry whomever they please -- ideas that are unconvincing in the public conversation, and greatly presumptuous coming from a court bench.