In a constitutional democracy, the law may be defined by the people but it remains subject to the constitution. The people of California voted for something that limited rights that the constitution provided to everyone in California. Judges overturned it because of that. The people of California then voted to amend their constitution such that it no longer provided one of those rights to certain people. This turned out to limit rights that the US constitution guarantees, and as such it was also overturned.

Your argument appears to be that these rights are merely legal, rather than moral. So fine. Let's go with "Brendan donated money to a cause that wished to remove one of the legal rights that the Californian state constitution guaranteed, but only from a subset of the population".