I think you summed it up pretty well. I really only read summaries of it and they were really rather strong arguments. There really doesn't seem to be a rational basis for the ban (and probably all of the others in the country as well).

NEVER MIND that Walker is homosexual and that his ruling in this case is a conflict of interest and is therefore not binding and he himself should be removed from the bench for that reason. NEVER MIND that the foundation of our republic is strong families and local governments protected against an over-bearing and dictatorial federal government by the constitution and that progressives have worked for a century to destroy the family so as to transfer increasing power to a centralized elite. And NEVER MIND that the purpose of the Amendment was to protect CITIZEN rights to life, liberty and property, NOT to protect or endorse a life style choice. The FACT that many lawyers are STUPID is no excuse for allowing a travesty like this to stand.

Those who have difficulty understanding how the opinion of one judge can override the votes of 7 million (mislead) California residents should know the words of James Madison, Father of the Constitution;"Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party,but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

From what I have read and heard of the case taken before this "judge", the plaintiffs (sic) presented a weak case believing "right" or "common sense" would prevail. Wrong. With the gay/liberal movement nothing should be taken for granted. Those who oppose such liberal thought must bring every weapon to the table.

I'd read an article, the name I can't recall, refering to the Roman Empire and the fact that groups "out of the norm" were allowed their own representation in governing. A poor example indeed. Rome was great as long as it was responsible. WE know, or those who know history, what happened to the Roman Empire.

I am not a lawyer but I can think of no "rational" or reasonable and thus "legal" reason to keep old people alive once they become dependent on taxpayers for the medical interventions to maintain life. It is done because society considers it immoral to let a sick old person, possibly in pain, to lay on their bed at home waiting to die. Also, it is not rational to make "drug", pot, which you can grow at home naturally, illegal, and yet our irrational legislators did so. Why? And why don't judges strike down those laws as irrational? Aren't they saying by this law that American adults can't control themselves? Is it rational to conclude that we can't control ourselves with pot but we can control ourselves with alcohol and guns???

So, how far do you take the rational? How do we as citizens figure out what rational is when it is apparent that the "legal" system doesn't abide by their own rules for consideration? Which could be interpreted as "they don't have a clue". Who gets to say when is it OK to apply it to our legal system, note that, "our" legal system, not judge Walkers, or not apply it?? Sometimes it is important to go with the democratic majority who reflects the moral philosophy of a culture versus a cold and calculating product of a law school. I contend it is "unjust" for a justice to impose his or her "rationale" on the rest of us. Some things in society are based on feelings which are based on belief systems, all of which would more than likely fail a so-called rational basis test. We are people, not characters like Mr. Spock. Walker's problem, just like all the ones like him hide behind rationality like Spock. The real world is messy and irrational. Who are they to impose their "beliefs" on us? And yes, rational thinking as applied to the human condition has to be a belief not a science because humans are not machines and therefore can not fit a rational model, as much as the Walkers of the world would like us to. But where does it end? How rational are we to become? Some of the Nazi solutions were "rational", but from a humane point of view they were cold and disconnected from reality, even to the point of being considered evil.

If the government wants to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals, fine, but homosexuals have no business trying to force churches to recognize their unions. Nor should the judicial system tolerate lawsuits brought about by homosexual couples against a church or clergy.

Keep the government and their misguided judges away from our churches and homes. It would seem that the government is attempting to be a modern day church with soldiers and guns. Their problem is that they don't have moral code and rationality is a poor substitute.

"If the government wants to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals, fine, but homosexuals have no business trying to force churches to recognize their unions. Nor should the judicial system tolerate lawsuits brought about by homosexual couples against a church or clergy."

Who brought that into it? I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened, and if it has, I'd support your position on it. However, I don't think anyone is forcing or can force a church to recognize a union it doesn't want to.

James Madison may have said that but that doesn't make it right in every case - there are many cases where asserting the supposed "right's" of the minority discriminates against the majority, as in this. He also said "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." US judges are out of control and are using their power to

Whether the arguments put forward were brilliant or not is largely irrelevant. Democracy is rule by majority - it's how the system works. If you don't like it look for a dictatorship or as James Madison said "A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person." which sounds a lot more like the misery that Lenin set up than what the US constitution implies. The legal profession, surely, is there to uphold the laws that have been ratified through parliament, not to override them and make their own.

How about historical precedence? We seem to have concluded that ending Roe v Wade is impossible because of years of legal precedence.

I argue society, historical record, religious beliefs and our culture have concluded that marriage is between a man and a woman. For many years longer than Roe v Wade.

MBI,

Thank you for your support, when/if this becomes Law ALL organizations will be required to recognise those Marriages by the very fact it will be Law. Please publish your email so you can receive valuable information that needs to be distributed to help fight this.