“Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people. The Supreme Court of California chose today to legislate from the bench without any concern or deference for the democratic process.

“This ruling effectively opens the door to allowing the opinion of this state’s court on same-sex marriage to stand as the law of the land for the entire country. These California values are not the values of the majority of the American people – and the manner in which this decision was rendered is not consistent with the values of a democratic society.”

Now, right from the get go there are a couple things wrong with Rep Blount's statement.  One, Supreme Court justices are elected in California.  Two, the State Assembly has passed full marriage equality acts twice, so Blount's argument the Court acted "without deference for the democratic process" falls flat.  It should also be noted that six of the seven Justices are Republican nominees.

Glenn Greenwald offers some tips on evaluating the Court's rullng:

(1) No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents.
2) Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges "overriding" the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their "marriage" laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed "it is up to the state Supreme Court" to decide the issue.
(3) Numerous states have already adopted laws declaring that they will not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Moreover, the Defense of Marriage Act makes clear that states are not required to do so.  Today's ruling applies only to California.
(4) The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally.  he key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.

Governor Schwarenegger's reaction to the Court's ruling:

I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.

The Governor is referring to a proposed state Constitutional amendment likely to be on the November ballot.  No polling has been done recently, but historical trends suggest passage may not be a slam dunk.

The Field poll questions have remained the same during the six surveys analyzed here. In 1985, only 30% of those polled supported same sex marriage. This increased to 38% in 1997, and the average for surveys in 2003-2006 showed support by 43%.

While only 25% of those born before 1940 are in support, that number has grown by 5% over these years. Those born in the 1940's are supportive at 40%, also a gain of 5%. Similar 7 and 8% increases are found for those born in the 1950's and 1960's, reaching above the 40% threshold. Those born in the 1970's and 1980's are in support by 51% and 58%.

One of the more interesting aspects of the gay marriage question is watching Republicans twist themselves around the axle while claiming they believe in state's rights and, on the other hand, want to legislate morality on a federal scale. 

Here's ex-Republican, now Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr's response to the California ruling (it should be noted Rep. Barr is the author of the Defense of Marriage Act):

"Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

"Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work."

There are some deliriously happy folks in California today.  Why some would want to deny them that happiness escapes me.