The ballot text reading "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" should be considered clear. Based upon that, voters by a 52-48% margin agreed to it.  The motivations of the voters nor understanding of the full ramifications of passage cannot be legitimately parsed by a court and if so, under only the most subjective terms.  Being clearly stated, the language defines well enough the result of passing such a measure.

The other possible Due Process violation is the depriving from one class by law; something to which it is entitled, or has a right to. Jim Crow laws which forbid public services that whites enjoyed, to blacks, would be a classic and easily understood example.  The argument was then presumably, heterosexual partners enjoy a recognition of marriage, not afforded to homosexual couples.  In fact the conclusion by the judge:

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation"

"protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. "

The "Right To Marry" as demonstrated by the citations in the decision, has been recognized.  However, Judge Vaughn purposefully sought to ignore the more broadly accepted definition of marriage, which would have settled the matter without further argument; the part being that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.  Plaintiffs in the case were essentially arguing that the judiciary must redefine that which has thousands of years of tradition, and has no reason to be changed except to suit their desired outcome; one that voters in the state of California deemed to be illegitimate.

The Plaintiffs were never denied due process, as their arguments were heard, and simply rebuked as non conforming to the definition they wished to have assigned to their relationships.  They were never denied equal protections, as they too could exercise marriage, which by definition is a covenant between a single man and a single woman; but not something they 'desired'.   They could still seek another of opposite sex for marriage as anyone else might.

The burden of reaching any particular designation rests squarely upon the person seeking it.  If 'Marriage' is what a woman wants, then there is nothing that government can do to prevent her from seeking and marrying a man; and a man likewise seeking a woman for said purpose.  No unfair burden has been placed on the persons seeking marriage, except that for it to be recognized that they should be of opposite gender.  Their rights are IDENTICAL to those who would naturally seek out such a relationship.

Because calling it marriage doesn't automatically make it so.  No more than calling me "Dr. Gillman. "

I haven't earned the title.  I haven't the prerequisite skills, or knowledge, yet under the redefining of institutions, nothing like this should be off the table.  Its my 'RIGHT' to be a doctor. I demand my title! Oh and by the way, Catholics are Jews, and Jews are Catholics.  And any freak who thinks they can sing can be called Lady Gaga.  And while we are at it, Dennis Lennox is a lion tamer.  No experience necessary, just toss him in there, because defining him as such makes it so.  No really.. do that, and I buy the argument.

Right?

The judge in his ruling is attempting to DEFINE marriage based on his own subjective analysis, when it's recipe has been a clearly established static since before the destruction of Sodom.  It simply IS what it IS.  Up is up, down is down, and water is wet.  Imaginative claims that redefine our language, and thus, our cultural norms, do not become more relevant because we are more accepting or tolerant.  Words have meaning, and in this case, it is no different because of an immature refusal to accept what it is.

Immaturity so quickly displayed with the language used toward anyone who might challenge the assertion that homosexuality is normal, and particularly now as rational people decline to agree with a broad brush of definitions re-casting standards in our culture, for the sake of the 2%. Displayed too easily when  temper tantrums might well be celebrated by media outlets, and make great reporting.  Immaturity and name calling tantrums that hardly advance any socially redeeming discussions.  Should we craft policy and change our language to suit those who throw them?

Additionally, under Judge Vaughn's ruling, the right to marry carries over into other bizarre possibilities.  His opinion and published claim of "irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation" might well meet a new threshold of tolerance someday when a judge who uses Vaughn's decision as precedent, declares his own claim of "irrational classification on the basis of mammalian orientation" with a man or woman in love with their dog, or wildebeest.

Or whatever it is that Mooooves them.

Baaaaad?