With all due respect, I'll have to admit I'm not impressed by your last post on Prop 8. It seems to me you are simply using a lot of words to re-formulate a flawed line of reasoning.
If you accept that State governments do not have the right to pass legislation which violates the Constitution, which seems a rather self-evident premise, than you must also recognize the legitimacy and purpose of some legal forum which enforces that premise. Logically, shouldn't that forum be a Federal court and a Federal judge? Where and who else would you suggest, The People's Court and Judge Judy?
You seem to be saying there are exceptions to the Constitutional mandate of equal protection, but your application of this notion to the ruling on Prop 8 is unconvincing. Once again, the State of California could not provide any evidence that an exception to this mandate was called for. If they had, at least Judge Walker would have had a basis for kicking this can down the street. But they didn't. For heaven's sake, read the transcript - or Judge Walker's accurate summary of it.
Steve, States can't go around passing legislation (or amendments) willy nilly which violate our constitutional rights. The 14th ammendment was passed specifically to address this issue. I can't think of any sounder application of it than Judge Walker's.
But setting aside the legalities for a moment, its pretty obvious to me that Prop 8 itself represents the kind of unnecessary government intrusion into our private lives which seems to rankle you so. Stand up for your principles, man!