Your logic and conclusions are dead on. 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. If it does, nothing will stand in the way of completely decriminalizing the criminal and criminalizing the non-criminal. Had enough yet, America?

We don't operate according to "god's laws", and never have. We operate according to our constitution. If you want to make a legal argument why the judge's decision was wrong, that's fine.

Making any sort of religious argument is inappropriate. To do so you must first establish which religion and which god. Then you've got to determine who will interpret what the applicable laws are. Those arguing against this decision have chosen the Christian religion. Exactly when was that established as the law of the land? This is nothing short of religious tyranny of the worst sort.

Arguing that the judge should have recused himself because he is gay is a specious argument. So far as I know there are only two choices here - you could have a straight judge or a gay judge. One can argue either perspective could bias the outcome. So then, where do you find an asexual judge?

These were the same reasons inter-ratial marriages were not allowed. We argued endlessly and voted and passed laws to ban them but the courts overturned the majority rule. This country is not ruled by the majority, it's ruled by something else that I cannot figure out. Children of mixed couples have a hard life and have to explain why their parents look different and get beat up more often. It's sad. I cannot imagine what kids from two mom's would have to deal with. At least children of widdows don't have to explain why they only have one mom.

I am a single mother. A 'father' was not in the household most of their lives. Just me. The LAW allowed for divorce. So...by this argument, divorce should not be allowed. This author would say my children are not well adjusted. (which is far from the case.) Three of my five children are grown and out of the house. They are either in school or finished college while supporting themselves. ALL of them had full time jobs while in school and going to school full time. NONE of them have had trouble with the law, drugs, alcohol....and are as well adjusted as the next kid if not more so. They respect the rights of others as well as standing up for themselves.

The author quotes "their higher power". We do not all have the same higher power or the same belief system. Freedom means to be tolerant of others freedoms as well as your own. EVERYONE has the right to marry over the age of 18. Who says every marriage has to produce a child. Who says that if you can't conceive you can not get medical help? I believe heterosexuals get medical help as well.

So...which is it....Everyone gets to marry or only heterosexuals do, BUT they can never divorce, have to have at least one child with NO help medically to get pregnant. My vote is EVERYONE. Any human adult can marry any other human adult.

Religious persecution is why this country was started....remember? Isn't taking away rights because they don't fit into your religious views, persecution?

Anita, how many of these mixed race children have you beaten up?

Anita - We have a constitutional republic. Representatives are elected by majority vote. These representatives pass laws, but those laws must not go beyond or conflict with the powers granted to the government in the constitution.

I live in California. If the question somehow came to a vote I could easily imagine the people of California voting by a large margin to make private ownership of guns illegal. Based on recent Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald that law would clearly be declared unconstitutional. When that happened would we all run around saying "But 7 milllion people voted for it!" or "How could the judge go against the will of the people?" Obviously not.

And by the way, I know several children of inter-racial marriages. They really don't have hard lives, and are some of the greatest kids I know. The real villians are the people whose hearts are so empty that they feel the need to discriminate against inter-racial couples or their children

The author invokes the name of Thomas Jefferson. But in his first inaugural Jefferson also said "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression".

Judge Walker did not say that Proposition 8 violated a gay person's "right to marry", he said it violated the 14th Amendment in respect to their right to due process and equal protection. That seems to me exactly what Jefferson was pointing at in the remark quoted above.

The authors argument from gay parenting being harmful to Proposition 8 being constitutional seems to me a highly dubious one that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny in the Supreme Court. The question is solely one of whether a State can reasonably discriminate between citizens of different sexualities when it comes to the status of relationship that it permits them to enter. Leave God out of it because God is not invoked in the constitution. "We the people" are the font of the constitution so leave your subversive theocratic desires at the door

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson

In their 2006 ruling the 8th circuit opined:

1) There is no constitutional right to same sex marriage

2) Procreation is a rational basis

Same sex enthusiasts appealed this ruling to SCOTUS under the 14th amendment, but were turned away at the door for want of a constitutional question - ie. There is no constitutional right to same sex marriage.

In their 1982 ruling on immigration as it relates to same sex marriage the 9th circuit opined:

1) There is no constitutional right to same sex marriage.

2) Procreation is a rational basis

The 9th went on to state that it was obvious to them that congress did not intend to extend preferential treatment to same sex partners in regard to immigration law.

What Walker did was take it upon himself to declare that the laws of nature no longer apply; that there is no funemental difference between same sex and opposite sex marriage to which we all have a funemental right.

In Loving v Virginia SCOTUS opined:

Marriage is a fundamental right; our survival and our very existence is dependent upon it.

Nobody in their right mind could ever claim that our very existence was dependent upon perverts rubbing their reproductive organs against each other.