It seems that the 2.5 percent of people who are practicing homosexuals ( that, by the way, is Kinsey's real number) are certainly making their wishes felt in California. They lost Prop 8, but now they are attempting to have that overturned by the state Supreme Court.
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, democracy loses if the court overrules a clear majority of the people in order to provide a small minority of people with a new right that they never had before.
James Taranto of Best of the Web Today has made rather persuasive argument in the past (sorry, no link) that when the courts intervene in matters that are about to be changed at the ballot box, it kicks a hornet's nest of political opposition that probably would not be there if the courts had just stayed out of it. He as pointed out that Roe V. Wade probably advanced the cause of legalizing abortion in most of this country by only three or four years. If the pro-abortion side and waited three or four years, there would've been a lot of local politicking on the issue, but it would not have become a national debate. By enacting Roe V. Wade, the court ensured a generation of political haggling on the national stage over abortion.
Now, various state courts are doing the same thing with gay marriage. Because they have done so, they will make it a significant issue for years to come.
As for me, if I lived in California and the state Supreme Court overruled a referendum of the people that modified the Constitution, as far as I would be concerned there would be no constitution. Then there is simply a dictatorship by the courts.