You can't say we don't have a democracy, but rather a Constitutional, representative Republic which abides by the rule of law, then complain that one man went against the wishes of California citizens. The whole point of saying we don't have a democracy is the idea that majorities don't rule and can't violate the rights of minorities -- that the Constitution protects minorities from tryanny of the majority.
Now they might think the judge ruled unconstitutionally, but that will have to be established, not complain that the majority didn't get its way.
If the conservatives are serious about limited government, it means that government should not have any say over who gets married or not -- let society work this out, as I stated in an earlier post. This makes me wonder just how serious conservatives are about limited government, a free market and individual rights. You can't complain when free individuals do things you don't like, as long as they are not violating your rights -- no one has a right to live in a country where gays can't get married -- it doesn't harm anyone if two men get married or two women get married -- it just doesn't. Just because marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman, doesn't mean that the government should enforce this tradition. Societies change and if enough people want to live outside tradition, it's no one's business.
The people who think a marriage between two people of the same sex is not really a marriage can keep that opinion, but it's a violation of the right to pursue happiness to forcefully prevent them from getting married as they perceive marriage. Churches can decide to not sanction gay marriages, but any given church shouldn't be forced to not sanction a gay marriage. There shouldn't be a need to get a license from the state to marry -- it's ridiculous. And states shouldn't give benefits to people just because they are married. Government should be neutral on marriage -- it's not a government issue.
You don't have to approve of or diapprove of gay marriage to uphold people's right join in union and call themselves married. If gay couples want to get married to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples, then they are getting married for the wrong reasons -- government needs to leave marriage alone -- let it be a decision between two people and leave it at that. To be truthful, polygamy is no one's business.
Now if someone is going to say -- What about humans marrying dogs, gophers or swamp rats? -- I say animals can't give their consent so you would be coercing the poor creatures. If it's children you're worried about, children below an established age aren't mentally mature enough to give consent, although one of my aunts married at 15 and stayed marreid to the same man for 56 years -- he died, she's still living. Child psychology can help decide this issue regarding when a person is mentally and emotionally mature enough to make a free decision, otherwise violations of children's rights would be at play. We just can't think in the same ways we always have, without controlling people, in a dynamic world where things are always changing -- plus homosexuality at different times in history was perfectly accepted -- it's nothing to be afraid of. I'm heterosexual, married for 39 years, but I don't care if two men or two women get married -- it's not my business.