Social Psychologists have long known that forced change in "behavior", either by fiat or by judicial decisions, eventually changes "attitudes" to be in accordance with that behavior. So, when the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts affirmed the civil rights of African Americans, coupled with President Truman's previous edict in 1947 that the military be integrated, there was an eventual conformity of most people's attitudes to the behavior that was forced on them by law or edict.
The following is part of the above linked article:
"Florida's strict law banning adoption of children by gay people was found unconstitutional Tuesday by a state judge who declared there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting.
"Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the 31-year-old law violates equal protection rights for the children and their prospective gay parents, rejecting the state's arguments that there is 'a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children.' She also noted that gay people are allowed to be foster parents in Florida.
"Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, who represent gay foster parent Martin Gill, said the case was the first in the nation in which numerous experts in child psychology, social work and other fields testified that there is no science to justify a gay adoption ban."
"Lederman rejected all the state's arguments soundly.
"'It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent,' the judge wrote. 'A child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to their needs.'"
This case will be appealed, but it's clear which way the wind is blowing when it comes for full equal rights for LGBT people, no less in California than in Florida, and the "will of the majority" of citizens to deny any or all civil rights to any minority group will not likely serve as a criterion for judicial decisions that are falsely claimed to be the result of "activist judges."
If it weren't for such "activist judges," we'd still be suffering from institutionalized Segregation, as the court decisions affirming integration in public accommodations, as well as Pres. Truman's edict demanding integration of the military, flouted the will of the majority.
Then, as now, when it comes to issues of same-sex marriage, or child adoption by same-sex couples, or child adoption by one Gay person, it is clear that it is the courts and not the will of the majority that can be counted on to, and that eventually will, determine both the acquisition of those rights as well as the eventual adjustment in most people's attitudes to the "activist judges'" rationale for those decisions.