LA Times Backs Kramer Ruling!!!

Usually, LATimes editorials follow the news by a day or two, but they rushed a same-day editorial up lauding SF Superior Court judge Kramer on his ruling declaring bans on gay marriage unconstitutional in California. (That's "same day" in the MSM sense; it was yesterday's news to us, but this morning's news to the newspapers.)

I thought the lead was particularly nuanced:

Before the talk-radio showmen sink their fangs into Monday's state court ruling overturning California's ban on gay marriage ...

They did caution SF gays from celebrating too loudly too, I should point out, but putting the vampirish Hewitt, Prager and Limbaugh first showed, to me at least, that they are increasingly defensive and insecure about their place in the opinion-formation process.

The LAT sums up its case:

In the coming days, that reasoning will receive close scrutiny. The judge argues that forbidding same-sex marriage is gender discrimination. A better argument would be that gays are a classic example of a group that needs constitutional protection from the tyranny of the majority. There is no special reason to assume that the Constitution's framers would disagree with that analysis if they were living in today's society.

That's it? First, please explain to me how the tyranny of the majority hurts gays, given the incredible success they've had at carving out not just equal but special rights? Once you've got that nailed down, please explain how marriage vs. civil unions (or just living together with equal rights) would change that.