On May 26, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8, the majority-approved voter initiative defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, will be upheld as a constitutional amendment.

Passion both against and in support of Prop. 8 did not go unnoticed by the California court, which acknowledges several times in its ruling the affinity both sides have for the word “marriage.”

However, as Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote in the court’s ruling, “Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question.”

And there’s the rub.

In this particular case, the California Supreme Court was to rule on the validity of Proposition 8 as an amendment. Since Proposition 8 followed proper procedure, that validity stands.

We on the editorial board support equality, but also agree with the court’s decision. Much like the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year, the court ruled on sound, logical, legal grounds, not emotional appeasement. This is their duty.

The job of changing hearts and minds, of calling for change and equality?

That falls to us.