It’s Glenn as we’ve come to expect – spot on.

Damn, that’s good stuff!!!

The point is that whoever wants to make a reasoned argument about the court’s ruling must — by definition — familiarize themselves with the relevant issues, and there is only one relevant issue here: does the California State Constitution bar the law in question? The way our government and system of laws were created, judges have no discretion if the answer to that question is “yes.” They’re required to strike down the law. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 78, regarding the duties of the federal judiciary: “wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.”

It’s Glenn as we’ve come to expect – spot on.

…..Teddy, thanks and joy for this post. And: woohooo! for millions of Californians….and (many) tens of millions of Americans. Freedom!

He read it exactly right, and sketched out their attack perfectly.

I’m not exactly sure which did it for you, but here’s the one that impressed me:

(4) The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into “marriage.” It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between “marriage” (as a religious institution) and “civil unions” (as a secular institution) — i.e., that California law could leave the definition of “marriage” to religious institutions and only offer and recognize “civil unions” for legal purposes — provided that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining “marriage” for religious purposes.