"First of all , it 's not a precedent . this is the seventh or eighth state where a higher court has found anti-gay discrimination in marriage unconstitutional . Secondly , when so many rulings go in this direction , it can hardly be called `` lawlessness `` . It 's a call for lawful , constitutional interpretation of statutes . It takes extraordinary intellectual dishonesty to pretend there is some `` agenda `` at work . These decisions are the consequence of two things : our long history of rationally applying those silly words about equality that folks smarter than this generation of politicians put in the Constitution AND a long-term correction of the misunderstandings of what homosexuality IS and what its consequences are . I know you do n't personally believe it , but there is nothing wrong with us ."
"This judge stated that it was UN-Constitutional ( according to California Constitution ) to limit marriage to opposite-gender couples . So . . . . . why did we vote in 2000 on the definition of marriage ? And since the majority stated that marriage was between one man and one woman - why was that not taken into consideration with this ruling ? Why is it that when the people speak their voice , it is IGNORED ? ? Not only the mayor of SF - but this Superior Court judge as well ?"
"a this is in can I"
"This judge stated that it was UN-Constitutional ( according to California Constitution ) to limit marriage to opposite-gender couples ."