4) This would be a ruling that applied only to California. It would state that once it grants the right to marry to same-sex couples it cannot revoke that right<<
The state of CA never did that. Two d@mned sets of blackrobes, one state, one federal, purposely did that.
>>there is no rational reason to deny such couples the status of marriage<<
That's Blackrobe lingo for, "We disagree with law passed twice, one by the right-wing CA legislature, and the last by the people via referendum."
Well we have 3 branches of government and this is a classic case of checks and balances. They allowed civil unions and the cal supreme court said u have to grant marriage if u do that prop 8 is passed then all the way to scotus. So whether or not its is agreeable that they didnt use judicial restraint the courts play a needed role sometimes its good sometimes its bad but so is the legislative process and referendums for that matter. Its a bit futile in california now dont u think though? If needed they could get gay marriage on the ballot and it would pass at present day, public opinion has shifted so much since 2008