Chris, I *did* read the ruling. All of it.
As I tried to say, I agreed with the principle behind the challenge to the amendment by the gay activists. I also pointed out that the presentation in support of the amendment was bungled (by focusing on so-called 'wisdom' and reasoning behind it). Knuckleheads, one and all. I am surrounded by well-meaning buffoons on all sides.
Sidebar: IMHO, Someone should consider bringing impeachment proceedings against elected and appointed officials for refusing to 'defend' the state constitution, regardless of their personal feelings in the matter. But that's another matter entirely.
Let me say here that I disagree with the amendment itself *and* the ruling. Neither should have been necessary. IMHO, were it not for an activist judiciary 'finding' (inventing) rights out of thin air, it never would gotten this far. Oh well.
Nonetheless, a claim was made. The state court 'found' a 'right' in the State Constitution. The public disagreed with the court's ruling and took the correct legal approach to change the State Constitution in ways more to their liking. This lead to another challenge; throwing the California amendment against the U.S. Constitution. A (lower court) federal judge decided - for whatever reason - to overturn a legally implemented state constitutional amendment. Whether he did so in response to a mismanaged defense is not the point... he should have kicked it upstairs as being "above his pay-grade". Period. And the case should have been argued SOLELY on the merits of whether or not amending the State Constitution on this subject was within the rights and responsibilities of the citizens of California. Period.
I am reminded of Prohibition and where the U.S Constitution was amended, and, later, when the populous wished to change their decision, they had to amend the Constitution again. I fail to see why this procedure should not be followed in this case, just because it happened at a state level. (IMHO, they chose this path because the activists *knew* that winning their case in the court of public opinion was unlikely. And its much easier to influence a single judge, or small panel of judges, than it is to convince the populous as a whole of the correctness of your position.)
I won't argue that some kids are well-treated when raised by gays. There are some who are well-treated when raised in a traditional household. There are some who are well-treated in single-parent households. And, in all of those scenarios, there are also some children who are horribly abused. Yes, children should be nurtured and cared for. More power and kudos to anyone who does that, regardless of lifestyle. But that is not the point, either.
This is a Constitutional issue. It has a special focus on States Rights and Consent of the Governed. It strikes directly at the core question of "Who Decides"? *THIS* is the issue that needs to be resolved at the highest levels. It's not about what is best for the children or best for society or - for that matter - whether or not the concept of equal protection under the law applies in this case... It's about who has ultimate CONTROL over what the law *IS*. And that is a dangerously slippery slope indeed.
I strongly dislike that something as contentious as gay marriage is the lightning rod. It could just as easily have been abortion or illegal immigration. But here we are. Having this issue clouded by personal activities which do not belong in the courtroom is distasteful, to say the least. We cannot always choose our preferred battleground; this one is before us and the storm clouds are gathering.
Chris, I believe the future of the country is at stake. We've already had the Kelo decision from SCOTUS striking at the very core principle of private property rights. This decision will likely be just as far-ranging. *I* am fearful for *my* rights, too. And it would appear 'minority' rights (there is no smaller minority than One) are being relegated to the back of the bus, again - cast aside before the altar of political correctness.
The tyranny which exists under an unaccountable ruler (even if it's just a 'judge' and not a monarch) invariably leads to destruction.
And so it goes.