Thank you judge!!

The judge's decision was based on a series of clearly-stated arguments, each and every one showing just how totally out of touch with reality he is. Truly bizarre. Saying that the civil rights of same-gender couples should be subject to the tyranny of the majority just because a few states treat them equally is absurd. Saying that they are already treated equally because everyone has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite gender ... basically the same argument that was rejected by the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia ... is absurd; giving people the right to marry ONLY those people they can't possibly fall in love and build a healthy, successful marriage with is giving them no right at all. Saying that there is a compelling state interest in denying same-gender couples marriage equality because straights would stop getting married if gays were allowed to is absurd. Again ... just bizarre.

The judge's reasoning is absurd and it's virtually certain that such contorted logic will be struck down. So, voters in one state can strip civil rights from a minority as long as there is some other state where that minority is treated fairly -- that's utterly incoherent. So is the claim that the state has a "legitimate interest" in targeting a specific minority for discrimination -- there is NO legitimate state interest in treating gay/lesbian citizens as a second class with fewer legal rights than heterosexuals.

Cases like this show exactly how specious the arguments of the anti-gay side are.

Further to that, the definition of marriage necessarily involves conceiving it as two halves of a whole. This is the complementarian view and is the proper application of the term in its correct usage and context. There quite simply be a marriage off two things that are the same. That is not a marriage, that is forcefully merging something that is designed to be wedded together.
So, the judges decision is 100% correct from a semantic point off view and such arrangements can be recognized as partnerships.

There seem to be emerging two definitions of marriage in our culture, at least in the minds of some. “Legal marriage” can be the state-sanctioned union of a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman. But hey, why stop there? If the state really can re-define “marriage”, why not marriage of a brother and his sister, or a woman and her dog, or whomever with whatever? But I digress. For purposes of this discussion, the other kind of marriage is “biblical marriage”, which is real marriage as defined by the God of the Bible. Use of the term “marriage” to signify anything other than the union of one man and one woman is an illegitimate use of the term, because God, the author of marriage, has already defined and used that term, and the last time I checked, He hasn’t changed His mind! Our culture may refer to homosexual unions as “marriage”, but God still calls them sin. Merely calling it marriage doesn’t make it marriage, any more than hanging out in a garage makes you a car! Read more at http://rethinkingtheology.com/2012/07/18/gay-marriage-did-god-change-his-mind/

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." And cursed is the nation who rejects Him. Homosexuality is not some hybrid form of humanity, but a perverse sexual practice and nothing more. It's not an inevitability of evolution, but the corrupt act of rebellious souls. The day Americans stop fighting to please God and allow the flesh-driven motives of pagans to rule over our society, that will be the day the Lord will allow this nation to fall. What is bizarre, Paul, is why man would lust after another man, or a woman desire another woman. Stop calling good evil and evil good. "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom," and though the Lord loves all His children, He will not hesitate to condemn them that mockingly reject His Holy way. Better to be celibate and single than to stand reveling in sin against God. Besides, God has such a great purpose awaiting all who heed His call and obey His commands. "God so loved the world that He gave His only perfect Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." What a beautiful Gift. What a loving God. What a devoted Brother in Jesus all we sinners have, that He would give His life for us - all of us - even the repentant sexually immoral. Deny Him however and your fate is your own doing.

@James Aist -- you don't seem to understand what the article was about. "For purposes of this discussion" ... as you put it ... we're talking about CIVIL marriage. We are talking about a decision by a federal judge regarding civil marriage law which is based on some very weird logic. And yes, civil marriage and religious marriage have been distinct for much of the history of our country. And, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, if you want to have discriminatory laws and have them hold up in court, they have to be based on non-religious arguments. The judge's arguments are, in fact, non-religious in nature ... but are also completely out of touch with reality and precedent established by the US Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia.

@ Dave N Sadly many people are so hasty to post their comments that they never take the time to CAREFULLY read the article.

It's not about the law of man, it's about the Law of G-d. Whenever a nation makes a sin into a lawful act, that nation is destroyed. You have only to look at the leader of this country to understand judgement. It will become more and more clear as the months pass that America will not survive the next four years.

Take a look at what happened to the Amorites in the Bible when that country legalized sin.

Well, it looks like to me the article and the court are saying the protection of traditional marriage is a legitimate interest of the state. Up to now homosexuals are saying it's a civil rights issue which it is not. Civil rights pertain to voting and homosexuals consisting of 99% whites have always been able to vote unlike women and blacks. Any ways, the state can uphold traditional marriage as a legitimate interest of the state and likewise can open up a common law live in arrangement. The homosexuals on this Christian website are saying that homosexual marriage is right and everybody including the states rights are wrong. And, why are homosexuals on this website any way. Obviously you're not Christians because you won't give up your sin to be a Christian. Sex is your god not the god of the rest of us.

@Original Anna -- There are so many misconceptions in your short post, it's hard to know where to begin. First, same-gender civil marriage presents no threat to traditional marriage, so this decision in no way represents a protection of traditional marriage; the judge's assertion that straight people will stop getting married and having babies, leading to the fall of civilization, is complete nonsense. Second, civil rights do not pertain to only voting; I don't know where you get that from. Civil rights become an issue any time a minority is unjustly discriminated against through laws enacted by the majority for no valid reason. When the US Supreme Court overturned laws and state constitutional amendments in 16 states prohibiting interracial marriage in 1967, they were addressing a civil rights problem. The issues involved there strongly parallel those regarding same-gender marriage. As for the claim that SSM supporters believe they are right and those that disagree are wrong ... we are talking about CIVIL marriage here; if those opposed to same-gender CIVIL marriage want to get anywhere, they need to start coming up with valid, non-religious reasons for feeling that way, because that is what is required when talking about civil law. As for your assumptions that those speaking in favor of SSM here are gay and non-Christian, I see no evidence to support that; I am straight and a life-long Christian. Most of the Christians I know support SSM. The majority of same-gender couples I know are Christian. You apparently make the mistake of thinking that your understanding of scriptures is perfect and infallible, which makes you one pretty arrogant individual.

Dave-You failed to mention any Bible verses that support your view of SSM. The reason is because you cannot. The Bible is clearly against homosexuality, it is an abomination before God. Unlike you, every Christian I know is against homosexuality and is against the government allowing them to marry. Most, if not all, are against homosexuals adopting children, and against the teaching of it in schools as being "normal". It is not, it is a sin.

And that is one difference between those bringing up adultery, There are no crowds of people saying that adultery should be supported by society, etc. Adultery is also a sin before God. But homosexuality is being pushed by many tv programs, newspapers, and it's now a law in California that junior high students have to be taught about the "struggles that homosexuals have gone through". Perhaps those struggles will help them from practicing their sin and keep them from hell.
Hebrews 10:26-27
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Hebrews 10:26-27

Marcy -- probably more to the point, there are no Biblical verses that condemn homosexuality in the context of loving, committed relationships. They are either talking about same-sex gang rape (the Sodom story), male shrine prostitution (the Leviticus verses and related passages in Deut., 1&2Kings), and things like temple prostitution and/or pederasty (Romans 1, 1 Cor. 6, 1 Tim. 1). You have to consider the historical and Biblical context of those few passages that speak to the issue at all, and also translation issues. Many Christians simply do not believe they are aimed at the kinds of relationships we're talking about here. You can disagree, but for people like Anna (and perhaps you) to attack the faithfulness of fellow Christians, just because we don't agree on Biblical interpretation is just wrong.

Religious texts are irrelevant when it comes to the American legal system. Your holybook -- Bible, Torah, Korah, Boddhisatva, whatever -- is legally meaningless. Our country is guided by the Constitution, not by collections of religious beliefs and superstittions.

Our laws, from the American colonial laws onward, were based on Sir William Blackstone's 4 volume "Commentary on the Laws of England". The primary principle was that all just law is rooted in God. His commentaries had a huge impact in the United States that lasts to this day. All future lawyers were trained from these commentaries and the fact that God is the source of our morality was ingrained into their thinking.
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/a-review-of-sir-william-blackstone-and-the-common-law-blackstones-legacy-to-america/

@Marcy -- Not to belabor the obvious, but the law in this country is governed by the US Constitution ... period. And that includes the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which precludes enacting/perpetuating laws that establish a preference for the views of any particular religious group over the the views of others with differing religious views, or no religious views at all. If you want to legislate discriminatory laws and have them hold up in court, you ultimately have to be able to justify them using rational, valid, NON-religious arguments. I've not heard any such arguments here, or anywhere else for that matter.

As far as the Bible, and other religious texts, and religious beliefs in general go, I would just suggest one thing. Anna betrayed a deeply ingrained bias when she said homosexuals worship sex, rather than God. For the kinds of same-gender relationships we're talking about here, it's no more about sex and lust than is the case for most married straight couples. Similarly, the foundational Catholic teaching on homosexuality (CCC2357) is based on four Biblical texts (ref.141). One is the Sodom story which, again is explicitly about gang rape, and the other three -- all from Paul's letters -- are acknowledged by the Catholic scholars behind the Church's very own NAB translation to be about things like pederasty. (See the USCCB website commentary.) So their view that homosexuals are guilty of "grave depravity" comes not just from the Bible, but from viewing scripture through a lens that equates loving, committed same-gender couples with rapists, prostitutes, and pedophiles. None of this is relevant to civil law but, for the sake of coexisting in a reasonably tolerant society, opponents of SSM would do well to realize that (1) disagreeing with them on Biblical interpretation does not make somebody a bad or unfaithful Christian, and (2) the view of homosexuals as self-indulgent, sex-crazed, and lust-driven is a bias that lies behind a lot of the religiously-motivated opposition to marriage equality.

Marriage, as a civil union, is dictated by the state and should consist of what the state determines to be in the best interest state and its residence. I can see where the idea that this is a civil right might have some ground, as certain people are excluded from partaking in the union. In most states, marriage between two men or two women is illegal, but that is also the case in that a father cannot marry his daughter of legal age, two siblings of legal age are unable to marry and so forth. The conditions of marriage are dictated by the standard of morality that the state holds, regardless if that standard is shared by a religious group or not.

To say that it is a basic human right for someone to be married is a stretch. For the most part, society limits marriage as a union between two people, but we do not hear about the discrimination towards those who desire plural marriage as plural marriage does not fit within the moral view of the state.

In reality, same sex marriage is more about changing the moral views of the state to include their views instead of an issue over civil rights. Marriage is an optional institution for people. It differs from the right to vote, the right to an education or the right to healthcare facilities if needed. Having the state recognize the desire to create a union between two people does not validate the feelings that the people might have towards each other, but rather extends financial and legal benefits to those parties. In order to be truly fair to all, the financial and legal benefits should be removed as it could be seen as discriminatory to those people who not wed.

@Xander -- The likelihood that civil marriage, and the rights and protections that go with it, will disappear is so unlikely, it is almost not worth discussing. And even if the benefits associated with civil marriage were eliminated, I'm not sure government could fully extricate themselves from the protections that are as much a part of civil marriage as benefits ... things like spousal health benefit protections and joint adoption rights.

That said, there are a couple of highly questionable aspects to your comment. The first is your attempt to undermine the very notion of civil marriage. You say it is not a basic human right, and yet the US Supreme Court has ruled, on at least two occasions, that it is. You also claim it is discriminatory to those people who do not wed, which is somewhat true ... but you neglect the reality that most laws are, in some way, discriminatory. Civil marriage laws, as you state in the opening sentence of your comment, are dictated by what is in the best interests of the state and its citizens. They take the form of state-granted rights and benefits to couples to promote the health and well-being of families, be they composed of just the couples themselves, the couples plus any biological children they might have, or the couples plus kids from adoption, previous relationships, or IVF/surrogacy. The social benefits of stable, long-term relationships ... manifested in the physical, mental, and emotional health of both the couples and any kids they are raising ... are very well established and represent a legitimate government interest in the common good. You can debate how well civil marriage serves its purposes, but simply pointing out that such laws are discriminatory is not, by itself, sufficient for getting rid of them.

As for who receives, and who does not receive, the benefits and protections of civil marriage, that is adjudicated based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, as usually applied by the courts. Such cases generally involve consideration of several questions. Do the benefits and protections serve the purposes behind civil marriage laws for the particular class of people in question?? Do current civil marriage laws fundamentally exclude that particular class from participating in civil marriage benefits and protections?? Is there any overriding reason for discriminating against the class in question, based on the common good?? The answers to those questions cannot be based on religious considerations, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, and do not need to be based on moral considerations, either. Same-sex marriage is NOT about changing the moral views of the state; it is about objective answers, supported by scientific research, to those questions uniformly supporting the extension of civil marriage benefits and protections to same-gender couples.

That is not the case for any of the other types of relationships -- pedophilia, incest, polygamy, bestiality -- people like to raise when talking about this issue. Homosexuals can enter into healthy, successful marriages, but ONLY with people of the same gender. Laws against same-gender marriage fundamentally exclude homosexuals from entering into a healthy, successful civil marriage, and obtaining the benefits and protections that go with it, with anyone, ever. There is no research to support the notion that there are people who can, for example, enter into healthy, successful marriages ONLY with siblings, or ONLY with multiple partners. In the case of incestuous relationships, there is also legitimate concern related to genetic defects in any potential offspring; that relates to the 3rd question. And with polygamists, it's not even clear what equal dispensation of benefits/protections means; it can be argued that because a polygamist is already free to marry any one of his partners, and get benefits/protections on a part with any other couple, they aren't currently being discriminated against as defined by the 14th Amendment.

Anyone can make their case in the courts ... polygamists, homosexuals, etc. ... but the outcome is not simply based on the prevailing social mores as you claim. There are rational, objective considerations that can, and should be debated, as they relate to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Some of the comments suggested that the opposition to homosexuality was based on criminal situations such as rape. But the basic prohibition appears in Lev. 20:13- "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Other passages similarly condemn females with females and humans with animals.

God is so opposed the such behavior, that He demanded the death penalty for it.

How, then, can a country that claims, with any credibility at all, to be based on God's principles, call such behavior a "right"?

America is being led by ungodly people into the condemnation of God, and that makes a very bleak future for it.