How are children deprived because their parents aren't married? How do these children come into being without aprents being married? Don't the parents of these children know they can't be married?

This should be overturned on the judge's personal prejudices which have nothing to do with constitutionality. There is the impression that if a same sex couple have children they won't be exposed to a role model of the opposite gender of the parents. What crap! If anyone has a sense of community these days, it is the gay and lesbian community. Their children will be exposed to all kinds of people, which will foster tolerence, and be exposed to people who are role models because they have stood up and defended their community. They aren't role models just because they contributed some DNA.

But marriage is not specifically to insure the welfare of children. It is time for the courts to recognize the interests of ALL Americans.

To me, this whole "is a gay/lesbian couple equal to a straight couple?" question is just a red herring, because it's arguing from an ideal position (in the straight person's mind) and reality has little to do with ideal scenarios. There are so many fathers who don't provide that ideal "male role model" need, so many women who don't make good mothers even if they have given birth. Usually, you're lucky if one of your parents lives up to their designated role, so really the question of "what's the ideal situation?" rings false. You know who makes good parents? Neither do I.

Ultimately, there are just people—gay, lesbian, straight—wanting to be committed, wanting to acknowledge their commitment socially, trying to provide a stable environment for their kids if they have or plan to have them, and hoping for a little economic break considering what it costs to live in the world.

I think the question of whether or not gay/lesbian couples are equal to straights, whether having children is part of the issue or not, is basically an issue of prejudice. Not necessarily mean, hateful prejudice, but oftentimes just discomfort with reconfiguring a basic pattern of society. I can understand the feeling of hesitation, and it is a serious change in the way the world works. But I believe it's time for that change. And I think the world will be better for it.

This issue is hard. However, we are not going to have gay marriage any time soon. I really don't care if it is "right" or "just" or whatever. No one except gays and extreme liberals votes on this issue. Gays: 1-2 %. Extreme liberals: 15-20 %.

This is not going to be an issue on which dems get into office. This issue will damage Dems as long as it is on the ballot. This has NOTHING to do with justice. It has to do with voting.

.... "If DOMA did not exist then the gay population would be just fine with civil unions, as it would make their relationships equal legally. However, a civil union means nothing as long as the Defense of Marriage Act is on the books." ....

That's a red herring. The fact is that DOMA is even more against gay marriage than it's against civil unions. The argument that DOMA is the root cause for the emphasis on marriage as opposed to civil unions, that is an absurd smoke screen.

For either gay marriage or civil unions DOMA and a lot of existing practices will need to be changed. Only there is much greater national support, hence likelihood of it actually happening, for civil unions; precisely for the reason that it addresses the economic issues equitably and provides more stability for gay/lesbian families and their children, but does not attempt to render judgment or force cultural equivalency between hetero and homo couples in regards to parenting.

The martyr speeches about economic issues while refusing civil unions are pretty specious and getting old fast.

The real issue that many observers of the LGBT community will admit, is that the litigation contingent of the LGBT community (which is the wealthier half of the LGBT community and is opposed by the pro-civil unions anti-litigation half of the LGBT community) can already afford legal services to establish custody, financial responsibility, and often are able to receive spousal medical benefits already. So for them, by virtue of class they already have the economic benefits of marriage.

That's why it's rather deceptive to claim this is about economic benefits when in fact the main proponents of the judicial route already have all the legal/economic bases covered by other means. For them it's much more about trying to win social acceptance and force cultural change via the courts.

Our citizenship is not a matter of debate. This current corrupt state of affairs reminds me of the internment of Americans of Japanese ethnicity in concentration camps, an event that can be called nothing less than an example of tyrrany, an event that is still badly rationalized by many. The courts do not have the right to suspend or dilute the citizenship of a minority group so long as part one of the 14th Amendment stands:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Given that we are FULL citizens of this nation, there is no constitutional basis for denying us legal marriage, so long as it is made available to heterosexual citizens. To do so directly refutes the Constitution.

The argument that homosexuals are "free" to have heterosexuals marriages is invalid. There are two types of monogamous pair bond, homosexual and heterosexual. That is all. Polygamy/polyandry, therefore, are not relevant. There is no scientific or logical basis that supports the invalid argument that sexual orientation is a freely chosen state. All the evidence, sociological, psychological, and biological, quite clearly demonstrates that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have an innate and unchangable preference for a specific sex.

Common sense, a concept referenced by the judge in an attempt to evade the clarifying process of formal logic, shows those who know enough to ask the right questions the very same thing. How many gay men who have been publically murdered the governments of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iran chose to be gay? What sociological factors could have possibly compelled anyone to face quick obivion at any moment as well as utter loathing from one's family, friends, and society? There is no "common sense" in the notion that such men would ever have chosen homosexuality.

Social prejudice, said Dr. Evelyn Hooker, is the true cause for concern, not sexual orientation. It is time for the glacial pace of our nation's moral evolution away from prejudice against minorities, racial, religious, or sexual, to finally recognize this fact. It is time to stop the punishment of gay Americans and society as a whole due to obsolete superstition.