And what's next? Laws forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies?
Massachusetts was the first state forced by judges to recognize same-sex "marriage". The state legislator passed "anti-discrimination" laws. And, shortly after that, a church was ordered by a judge to let same-sex couples "marry" on Church outside property, because the church let hetersexuals marry there. The church responded by not allowing anyone to marry on their outside property. I don't think there's any danger of preachers ever being forced to perform same-sex marriages, but there's certainly a danger of Christians being marginalized.
In the UK, Christians are prohibited form adopting children (unless someone has fought back and changed this). Christians aren't explicitly disallowed adoption, but anyone who doesn't approve of sodomy is disallowed, under the excuse that the child might be a homosexual.
We have already seen states baring the Boy Scouts from public property over the homosexual issue (including a case of a building the the Scouts donated to the city!). We'll see more of that, where anyone who doesn't approve of sodomy is discriminated against by the government.
What we will see, as the case in much of Europe, is professed Christians disappearing and churches closing, as Christianity is all explicitly outlawed. And, o just because Christians refuse to back down from recognizing sodomy as immoral.
California is largely Democrat in population. That's why the Proposition 8 Yes vote years ago was so surprising. Gladly so, praise God.
The public, including all 50 states, is subjected to nothing but pro-homosexual propaganda in the media, so for that reason alone, it's remarkable that Prop 8 passed. But, there would have been no need for Prop 8 if the majority Democrat population hadn't elected a Democrat government. Anyway, Democrats are no where near as morally liberal as Democrat leaders. Many people vote Democrat for other reasons (unions, socialists, etc.).
I'd hope there is a counter to the claim of the 14th amendment and the equal rights laws as well. Sodomites are not equal in matters of the very meaning of the institution of marriage.
"Equal protection" shouldn't apply to Sodomies for a number of reasons. If you want to be crass about equal protection, we should let children drive. We should let children drive drunk! That's equal protection of children and heavy drinkers!
The 14the Amendment itself guarantees the the right to vote only to males! (It didn't ban women from voting, either.) Obviously, those who wrote the 14th Amendment didn't even have in mind the modern concept of "equal protection" even between man and woman, let alone between morally straight people and sexual perverts. Never mind that every one has always had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just because you're not interested pursuing a right doesn't mean you're not equally protected!
Given the context of the 14th Amendment, "equal protection" doesn't mean government accommodation of diverse interests. Read the "equal protection" clause in the context, " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection means the same due process. If you're a accused of something, you get a trial no matter who you are. If the government wants to take something from you, it has to go to court, no matter who you are.