Sexuality is not protected under the equal protection clause. Marriage is. And Walker didn't argue that same sex marriage prohibitions were unconstitutional because they discriminated against sexual orientation. He argued they were unconstitutional because they discriminated against sex. I suggest you actually go read the ruling before you comment further.My point isn't the legality of it, it's the logic behind imposing homosexual unions upon everyone because sexuality is protected under the equal protection clause.
This has nothing to do wtih imposing morality. This has to do with upholding the Federal Constitution. The will of the people is the Constitution of the United States of America, not a ballot measure passed by a slim majority of California voters, nor any other ballot measure passed in any other state. The judge determined that the will of the voters in California violated the rights of a minority guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Those rights were equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause and the right to Due Process. The law is written, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."If a man wants to marry a blow up doll, why can't he? It's non living. The ability to consent is a moral stance. It's a moral belief that you can't marry a dog, or doll, because they "can't" consent. When pansexuals and zoophiles would all tell you that they can and that you have no right to impose your morality on them.
Supreme Court precedent holds that marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right...
Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public commitment."
Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."
Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected buy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
The judge defended the will of the people, the federal Constitution; by overturning Proposition 8, which sought to mandate gender roles and restrict same sex couples to a culturally inferior institution by excluding them from marriage and the cultural dignity, respect, and stature inherent in marriage. The state has no interest in excluding one group from a fundamental right without rational basis and so the judge was obligated to overturn it.
Indeed, and they are entitled to their moral stance. However, they are not entitled to place their morals above the Federal Constitution.For many, homosexuality is considered deviant, that is a moral stance.