A question for everyone in here....
For the liberals ---> Why have some of you, or in general many liberals, decried the rulings of judges in other states as wrong, unconstitutional, and erronious when they've ruled that such things ARE constitutional. Why did liberals by and large degrade such rulings, while simultaneously continually pointing to this going "See, see, a judge said so!" as some kind of proof that it is constitutional and that people should automatically accept it. More precisely, why do you think people should be held to a standard that liberals have not been holding to time, and time, and time again?
For the conservatives ---> Conservatives generally pointed towards judges in the past making a ruling on the constitutionality of this as being "proof" that their position is right constitutionally. However, if you're basing the argument off a judges decision then how is this one different in its legitimacy. The statement "he's gay, he's biased" is no more reasonable than "the other judges were straight, and biased". Indeed, on what ground or basis do conservatives by and large deny their hypocrisy of going "see, see, a judge said it was constitutional so it is" to turn around and say "It doesn't matter what a judge says".
Would it not be more appropriate, more apt, and less hypocritical on both sides to simply state that this result simply means its a step closer to the Surpreme Court and actually being decided rather than attempting every time one of these come out to say "SEE! This proves it! MY side is RIGHT because a JUDGE said so."?
This judges ruling is no more important nationally or constitutionally than any of the judges before him, and theirs no more important than his. This proves nothing other than that THIS particular judge feels its unconstitutional. All this does, along with the others, is provide the possability of this making it to the Surpeme Court.
As to the ruling, I'm unsure of my feelings in regards to due process though agree with it under equal protection but for reasons outside of what the gay movement pushes.
With that said, I don't think this will help anyone and I think it getting pushed to the Supreme Court is going to continue this schism in the country and cause the isue to not die down anytime in the near future. I think this is the shoe horned approach, primarily because both sides have reached a point where they've entrenched themself so much that reasonable, rational, discussion and attempts at compromise in an intelligent way is almost beyond possible.
