"Here, Sir, The Queers Rule"

California voters and California judges have been doing this twisted dance for quite a while now, so I suppose this latest step for Perry v. Schwarzenegger on the road to Olympus was more or less inevitable:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

In other words, this was a political decision, not a legal one.  Judge Vaughn Walker quite obviously favors sodomarriage and isn't too well-disposed toward Judeo-Christianity (hence the "irrational" crack), so he used legalese to substitute his personal views for those of the 52% of Californians who decided that marriage is what is has always been ever since God ordained it.

To understand the, yes, irrationality of Judge Walker's ruling, one can quite instructively use the metaphor of basic arithmetic.  By every rational standard of measure, two plus two equals four.  Or, put another way, 2+2=4.  Or, expressed equivalently, 2*2=4.  Or 4/2=2.  And so on and so on and so on.  No matter which way you approach it, no matter which way you analyze it, two plus two always equals four.

But there are always mathematical dissidents who lament how "unfair" it is that two plus two HAS to equal four.  Why can't two plus two equal five once in a while?  Or seven?  Or sixty-eight?  Why shouldn't all potential sums of two plus two be treated equally?  By insisting that two plus two can NEVER equal any sum EXCEPT four, every other number is being discriminated against.  And soon enough we can expect equal protection lawsuits to wind their way through the federal judiciary seeking to overturn the bigoted, narrow-minded exclusionary view that two plus two equals four.

Sound silly?  How is this sodomarriage foolishness any different?  As I have always said, this is NOT a case of the law "discriminating" against homosexuals in their behavior or choices; this is a case of homosexuals seeking SPECIAL group rights for themselves to which they are NOT ENTITLED by assaulting and undermining the very lynchpin of human society and civilization: the family.

Ace summarizes what has always been the state's interest in protecting marriage as God created it.  Notice the basis Judge Walker uses in declaring that interst "unconstitutional":

The argument offered by those seeking to keep Prop 8 in place was, actually, my preferred argument: The state does not have an interest in propagating love. It has an interest only in fostering stable families (meaning: with children). Straight marriage is directly implicated by this interest, since most married couples have children. Gay marriage is irrelevant to this interest, since few gay couples have children (and none, of course, naturally by the couple itself).

The Court claimed this was a post-hoc rationalization, and, in any case, "irrational."

Further, it claimed that those who had pushed Prop 8 relied upon unfair stereotypes of gays and other considerations, such as the strong desire of almost every parent on earth (liberal or conservative) to not have his kid told about gay sex and gay marriage in school. Since the thrust of these new laws is always "There is no difference, and it's illegal to treat things differently," the only way to prevent this is to enshrine the difference in law.

The judge, however, found this to be proof of "animus" towards gays and therefore the law must be unconstitutional.

Marriage is what it is.  It is the union of a man and a woman.  Not two men, not two women, not three men and a baby, not the cast of Madagascar, not two shirts, four underwear, and three pairs of sox.  One.  Man.  And.  One.  Woman.  Period.  To suggest that the burden of proof should be on the defendants in this case is just wrong, first because it is the plaintiffs who have to prove their case since they're the ones trying to overturn five thousand years of human social history, and, second, because demanding that the case for marriage be "proven" is like asking how high is up; it simply IS, and the little fact of those five thousand years of it being this way tends to suggest that it works just fine the way it is.

So why did the defendants not offer a more robust marriage defense?  Because they didn't want to fully explain "the difference" and incur the label "homophobe" any worse than they had already.

Now are there other benefits of marriage besides children a couple procreate together?  Sure.  They can adopt.  There's lifetime companionship.  And there are the material and legal benefits.  But for the latter homosexual "couples" already have domestic partnership statutes pretty much nationwide.  Individuals can adopt as well, whether or not they have a "significant same".  Homosexual "couples" can theoretically make lifetime commitments to each other, though in practice such pledges are far less likely to ever last than their marital counterparts (IOW, the "stereotypes" about homosexual relationships are NOT "unfair") and that means greater household instability, and that isn't good for children.

But the CORE "difference" is that homosexuals cannot procreate with each other.  Hence, they cannot truly marry by definition.  And any children illicitly shoehorned into such "relationships" will quite likely be raised with those same "orientational" values, which means, in the aggregate, falling birthrates, the very same demographical deathspiral that is afflicting the entire Western world (including Japan) and is only being held back in this country via the flood of illegal Mexican immigration and the still-robust procreativity of the, shall we say, more socially conservative sector of the American populace.

If you're looking for the true target of Judge Walker's wrath, look no further:

My first thought: the churches–any of them who wish to remain able to practice their faith in relative freedom–will have to seriously consider getting out of the business of acting as “duly recognized” agents of the state in legalizing marriages. The alternative will be inevitable lawsuits charging “discrimination” for disallowing church weddings, a diminution of our constitutional right to free worship, and a further emptying of church coffers as settlements and fines are levied.

Oh, it'll be taken a LOT farther than that.  The legal incentives will be set up to bully churches away from conducting weddings AT ALL, as that will be the only way for pastors to avoid getting sued for "discrimination".  You wanted to know how codifying sodomarriage would impact REAL marriage?  There you go.  One might even call it the de-Christianification of marriage as what's left of the now-perverted and twist "institution" will be entirely nationalized by pagan animals like Judge Walker.

Sounds an awful lot like....persecution to me.  Certainly it's the state infringing, rather blatantly, on the First Amendment right to "the free exercise [of religion] thereof," by means of "respecting the establishment" of homophilia.  Heck, I can see pastors who "obey God rather than men" being frog-marched out from behind their pulpits in handcuffs for refusing to bow to our judge-enforced Lavender Overlords.  My, that will be SUCH a sight to see on the six o'clock news.

The Rightospheric consensus seems to be that when this unjust and tyrannical ruling reaches Olympus, Justice Kennedy will join the lib quartet to rubber stamp it.  Some even think it won't be appealed at all.  But there are others, like J.E. Dyer, who hold out hope for "rationality":

It’s hard to remember a less legal-sounding and more partisan-political-sounding judicial ruling since Roe v. Wade.  The judgment rendered by federal judge Vaughn Walker on Proposition 8 yesterday is a pure mish-mash of buzzphrases.  It’s bad law, and I can’t believe it won’t be overturned on appeal....I have a feeling the Supreme Court is going to come through on this one for us.  From a legal standpoint, Walker’s decision is idiotic.

May all of Dyer's feelings come true.  But given Perry's particular path to Olympus - i.e. the Notorious Ninth Circus - it won't be overturned, if it is, at the appellate level.  That leaves Olympus, and Justice Weathervane, who authored two pro-homosexual special rights rulings in the not too distant past.

Ace gets the exit quote:

This feels to me like Waterloo. This is the judicial establishment gone utterly lawless.

I don't know if we're a democracy if this decision stands up.

What are votes worth? Nothing, apparently.