The sweeping and off-topic nature of some of U. S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's language reveals his agenda as being other than what his job called for. Had he focused on whether the Constitution requires the redefinition of "marriage" to accommodate various sexual perversions (hint: it does not), the trial would have been short and decisive. However, the judge was out to marginalize "religious" Americans and mainstream one particular class of sexual pervert and, by golly and by his robe and gavel, he did.
Judge Walker did not examine the proposition to see if it was constitutional. Had he done so, as I said, it would have been a pretty brief trial.
Rather, Walker put the voters on trial, read their minds, weighed the value of their religious/moral convictions, and decided they did not impress him. We who voted for Proposition 8 were tried and found guilty, and now we are disenfranchised, as an activist judge invents something (as far as I know) never seen nor embraced in any society.
I don't have time for much more just now, so I'll point you to some good essays.
Frank's is super, of course
Al Mohler just begins to hint at some of the breathtaking enormity of the judge's overstepping
Then transition from Mohler's cool discourse to James White's red-hot diatribe, noting what I pointed out yesterday about the judge's vested interests.
Fred Butler's thoughts
I'll add any other bright lights as they pop on.