If equal, rather than separate-but-equal, wasn't a right, they wouldn't be talking over and over again about how it carves out an exception to that right, but that's okay.

My impression was that their point is that abrogating ≠ limiting. It seems like a pretty ridiculous argument since the California Constitution explicitly states that the right to privacy is an inalienable right! (If this argument had solely been applied to Californian's right to due process, perhaps the court would have been on sturdier ground? Due process is a legally granted right, after all.)

I think they've opened up quite a can of worms here.

I agree. It feels like they're bending over backwards to contradict themselves.