First, I don't live in CA, and I don't know the specifics of the legistaltion you are talking about, but I do live somewhere that this has been a topic of discussion and debate recently.
I personally find this complicated, and simple.
Simple because, yes, absolutely, every time the state accommodates an outsider group* it potentially (and most often does) pacify and further assimilate said group. This is historically proven, from civil rights to gay marriage. One of the easiest ways for the sate (or capital - labor laws anyone?) to quell unrest is to throw a bone to the discontented.
What makes this complicated (for me) is that sometimes these bones qualitatively improve the lives of people I care very much about. As a cis white guy, it feels a little disingenuous to tell others they shouldn't have the same privileges I do, based on things like race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Since I don't participate in statist politics, the point is somewhat null: I'm not going to sign that petition, or vote for that candidate or referendum. Mostly what I have found is that while I am happy when people I care about are able to have more options, or experience less discrimination, and I can be critical of the fact that this is happening because the state has told us that is how we will be (which actually rarely does a damn thing to change individual behavior), and always addressing the way in which "rights" act to postpone or quell rebellion.
*I am choosing to use the term "outsider" because this doesn't just happen to minority groups, I could also say marginalized, but that still feels somehow not encompassing enough