Truthfully I'm getting tired of the entire thing, truthfully I think what we need are laws in place to prevent constant legal appeals and people trying the same thing again and again after every failure... in any case, not just this one.
Simply put, a judge overturns it today and "tomorrow" it will be right back there again, until the Supreme Court of the US makes a ruling, and even then it's not likely to stick. As "awesome" as it is for some judge to make a ruling and invoke the powerful image of The Constitution, it's important to note that it's simply political posturing since it's pretty easy to tell that the spirit in which The Constitution was intended is far differant from how people choose to interpet it today. I very much doubt the founding fathers who wrote it would agree with the Judge in this case going by the numerous examples of their actual interpetation of the document that were left behind. For example their idea of what constitutioned a reasonable search and seizure, or "cruel and unusual" punishment are far differant from what people try and argue today. Given their support of institutions like slavery, torture, and other things I very much doubt they would have even supported the various rulings leading up to this.
The overall point here is that for all the power it's image invokes, anyone who chooses to use the term "constitutional" in a case like this really makes a bit of a joke of themselves to anyone who bothers to look at it.
Besides which, the issue here is and always has been money. As someone pointed out early on (I haven't read all the responses) the whole "gay marriage" issue isn't one related to human rights and freedom, but the pursuit of the all mighty dollar. All of the stuff the judge mentioned in regards to that ruling have absolutly nothing to do with the central issue at stake. As things have stood for a while, there is nothing preventing a couple of homosexuals from exchanging vows during a party, and swapping rings or whatever. The meaning of which is totally between them and the community (and whether other gays consider the people involved 'off limits' being committed to each other). The issue of a marriage liscence comes down to legal recognition of the married status, and that legal status is generally only relevent in filing paperwork for tax breaks and the like. The tax breaks afforded to a married couple exist based on the presumption that they will be starting a family and having children, something that will not happen with a gay couple (pregnancy is not possible). Yes it IS true that not all heterosexual couples have children, but that was the intent of the laws and what happens in most cases. With homosexuals those tax breaks ultimatly come down to them being given free money for being gay, and one of the reasons why so many states waffle on the issue is when the bill comes due (so to speak) and they realize how much revenue it's going to actually wind up costing them.
Even if I wasn't anti-gay men, I wouldn't support gay marriage (and over the years I've met a number of very pro-gay people who I've debated with whom agree with me on these points). 10-20 years ago when hospitals were refusing visiting rights to homosexual "life partners" and such and similar kinds of issues there was more defense for seeking gay marriage laws. However as time as gone on most of those issues have been addressed and policies have changed greatly.
Generally speaking this would only be a constitutional issue if the goverment was preventing gays from getting married at all, not simply refusing to legally recognize it for tax purposes and such. A case could be made if say we had the police busting gay marriages and arresting the people involved for having the ceremony, or arresting gays with matching rings, or claiming exclusivity to each other based on vows. That's not what this is, it's 100% financial and bureaucratic. The judge speaks well to the crowd, and I think a lot of people are still ignorant about this specific issue and what it's about, getting caught up in the intertia of other beliefs they might have followed.
My general opinion on homosexuals aside, I do sort of agree with an earlier poster that has mentioned that we should probably do something about the tax breaks for married couples in general, and remove the entire issue of "goverment recognition of marriage" from the table entirely, and only see such benefits provided when they have kids. That would end a lot of this, as well as removing the fair point that there are heterosexual couples that wind up exploiting the marriage benefits without ever having kids (though I do believe they are a minority of people).
As I said to begin with, I expect this is going to be tossed back and forth for quite a bit yet.
In the end, understand that for all the fancy politics and powerfu imagery, this isn't a human rights issue. It's a money issue. Whether your in favor of gay rights, against them, or don't care, as things stand now this ultimatly comes down to the simple issue of your tax money and whether you believe gay couples should pay less taxes than you (and have more money in their pocket) just for being gay. Dress it up, dance around it, or look at it through a carnival mirror, that is what it comes down to.
