As I've mentioned before, I voted for 102. I did so exclusively in accordance with the counsel of my Church leaders. My personal opinion is, was, and will tomorrow be that the notion of state sponsorship of marriage is about as appropriate in a secular government as state sponsorship of baptism. It is a holdover from a time where church and state were one and the same, and it has no business in our First-Amendment-loving country.
I assembled an aphorism of which I'm rather proud (and which my lovely wife felt was overcomplicated, but alas,) "The boot on your foot today is the same one at your throat tomorrow." This is why the Prop 8's and 102's of the world are a bad idea. When you tell the world you're willing to use government to enforce your social agenda, at the expense of another fully enfranchised American citizen's, you give that citizen the ability to wield that some power over you, just as soon as he gets more friends than you to the polls. If that kind of ideological gangland brawl is what you want, then go for it. But it's stupid.
If you are LDS, you probably believe (as I do,) that the Pride Cycle is a real, demonstrable, sociological phenomenon. Assuming that is true, you must acknowledge that wicked men will someday exercise dominion over you and yours. Why give that future King Noah the tools by which he will oppress you?
And so now, a judge has struck down Prop 8, an amendment to the California Constitution. Barring a reversal at the federal level, which is extremely unlikely, Californians will have exhausted their recourse to affect the issue at the state level.
So now it is, according to the opinion delivered in this case, unconstitutional to discriminate against homosexuals in the state marriage system. What then, for state marriages performed in one of the several LDS temples in California? Now that we've firmly established that the state has an interest in marriage, it must needs follow that the state can regulate the use of licenses it itself issues for the performance thereof. Is it a violation of the due process rights of homosexual Californians for someone to refuse to solemnize a marriage duly licensed by the state? Expect this argument to come soon. It's not crazy - a wedding photographer in New Mexico was fined for refusing to engage in a private commercial transaction with a lesbian couple who wanted her to photograph their commitment ceremony under the due process clause of that state's constitution.
A conscientious believer with an eye on history must surely know that Christianity has never fared well to pin its fortunes to the whim of government. I could only wish more people could see that.