mangrumsNet

This one has a lot of people ticked off on both sides of the issue.  Proposition 8 was passed and the California state Constitution was amended to define state-recognized marriages as being between a man and a woman.  That was challenged, in a court presided by a completely unbiased judge (who happened to be in a same-sex relationship), and the amendment was ruled unconstitutional.  Then, in a "dare you to challenge the ruling" moment, he goes a step further:

And, just yesterday, Walker’s refusal to stay his judgment pending appeal, the latest step in his gamesmanship to try to deprive Prop 8 proponents of their appeal rights and to avoid effective appellate review of his shenanigans.

Walker’s course of conduct would be sufficient cause for national scandal in any case.  That it comes in a case that aims to radically remake the central social institution of American society makes it utterly intolerable.

I can’t imagine that any federal district judge has ever committed more egregious and momentous acts of malfeasance in a case.

This releated article goes over the truth and fiction behind the controversy.  It is worth reading.  Here are a couple of excerpts:

4. “Recognizing gay marriage would do nothing to harm existing opposite sex marriages.”

TRUTH: The problem with government endorsement of same sex marriage isn’t damage it would do to current heterosexual couples, but the profound change it would bring to the institution of marriage itself. In every civilization known to historians and anthropologists, marriage involves the union of man and woman—and the recognition that combining the two genders produces a durable unit that is very different from any all-male or all-female combination. The argument for gay marriage depends on the discredited and destructive idea that men and women are identical—that your marriage will be the same whether you select a male or female partner. Gay marriage also separates the institution of marriage from the process of childbearing, at a time when we need to reaffirm that children fare best within a marriage, and marriage becomes more significant when it produces children.

5. “Denying marriage rights to same sex couples is the equivalent of denying marriage rights to inter-racial couples before 1967.”

TRUTH: The old and hateful laws barring interracial marriage directly discriminated against individuals based on their race—a discrimination explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. The language of the Constitution never mentions (or even hints at) similar protection for sexual orientation. Before Loving v. Virginia struck down the evil anti-miscegenation laws, such legislation treated a black man and a white man completely differently: the African-American couldn’t marry a white woman, but the white guy could. As noted above, under Proposition 8 a lesbian woman got exactly the same marriage options as a heterosexual woman; there was no potential mate that the straight woman could choose, but the gay woman couldn’t.

And finally, a federal appeals court did what judge Walker would not.  He put a hold on any marriages while the constitutionality of the case is being determined.

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Strictly speaking and moral implications aside, if this is not addressed in the U.S. Constitution, the states are well within their rights to make such an amendment.  I will be interesting to see which direction this goes in the end.  2 Timothy 3:2-5