Ending those marriages would be akin to "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by the state's highest court," George wrote.
Portions of the majority ruling read as a lament over the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended.
The 136-page majority decision contained a lengthy history of the state Constitution and the ballot amendment process and distinguished California's amendment process from those of other states and the federal Constitution.
"If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted," George wrote, "this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."
It is neither impossible nor improper to limit how voters may change the Constitution, George wrote.
"We have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners -- but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature," he said.
By stressing that only the term "marriage" was affected by the November election, the court seemed to signal that a broader ballot measure might not be upheld.
But the court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical.
"It leaves us to the kindness of strangers," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. "They could take away anything."
UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar agreed, saying the court defined an illegal revision as a measure that changes the structure of government, not one that takes away individual rights.
"It is hard to see how any repeal of any person's liberty or property would affect the structure of government" and be deemed an improper revision, Amar said.
Jesse Choper, a professor of constitutional law at UC Berkeley, said the court's ruling means that voters may take away individual rights "in a limited fashion" and that the scope of the measure will determine whether it is permissible.
"The court wasn't happy about this. Proposition 8 changed their opinion" last year that gave gays and lesbians marriage rights, he said. "The justices stood up and said, 'OK, people have the right to do so, and it is not a revision because it is limited in scope.' "
