This is good news, but is announced in a poorly phrased way:
Unlike Massachusetts, where gay men and lesbians are permitted to marry because of court rulings, the legislators in California voted to amend the state's family code without the threat of legal action. ...
Californians voted overwhelmingly in 2000 for a ballot measure, Proposition 22, that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but the legality of that law is now being fought over in the courts.
In a case stemming from a decision last year by Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco to allow gay men and lesbians to marry, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that the state law was unconstitutional but the ruling is being appealed.
In other words, the basic law that pending litigation aims to overrule is under "threat of legal action." The article's point seems to be that the Massachussetts Supreme Court declared the previous law unconstitutional, compelling the state legislature to act. But, clearly pending litigation is surely a "threat," especially given the liberal tradition of the California Supreme Court. In fact, recent rulings respecting lesbian couple child disputes suggests the way the courts in that state are going.
So, simply put, the legislature had to realize there was a "threat of legal action." Also, the governor's desire to punt until the courts decide is rank weenie behavior. I am unclear why he is against the legislature having the role in changing key social policy. It sounds a bit girlish actually.