>>>THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT CHANGE.
>>
>>The power of the branches of government are set forth by the constitution. The judiciary's role is to determine legality of legislation not to write it. Prior to the 2008 decision "marriage" was not a right. Following that decision, it was. That's changing the constitutionally set forth role of the judiciary. That's changing the constitution. It's not merely the establishment of the new right, but the role of the judiciary that changed.
>
>Would you say that the constitution of a state changed when the courts ruled that interracial marriages couldn't be prohibited?

The Constitution of the state did not as the case was federal.

>Did that establish a new right or change the role of the judiciary?

Yes. From Loving V Virginia : "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"
Where exactly is this "right"? It's not in the Constitution. It's not one of the inalienable. So where does it come from?

Frankly, I would argue that the judiciary's role has been expanding since its inception, and accelerating at points in time 20s, 60s, 2000s, and there are numerous examples of them bypassing the Constitution to grant new "rights" and subverting the will of the people. This is merely another example, however, that doesn't make it correct and it needs to stop. Frankly, after Kelo v New London, I don't know that there's anything the judiciary cannot justify.

>How is this situation different?

A couple of ways:
1) That was the US Supreme court ruling on a statute not a State Constitution.
2) That case was about the heart of the 14th Amendment, namely racial discrimination which is mentioned throughout the opinion.
3) Hernandez v. Robles has established that Loving does not apply because the statues in question were based purely on outright bigotry, whereas the historical context of marriage is not based on bigotry.

>Tamar