” … So much of his decision is built on the idea that the symbolism is different, and that gay couples have the right to the symbol/meaning of the word “marriage”, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. … ”
==========================

Absolutely agreed. Because what the judge is doing here is taking a word which has a concrete and universally-understood meaning, and assigning a new meaning to that word. All by himself.

Does this mean that some other judge will feel free to change the meaning of the word “citizen”? What about “self-defense”? What if one of these activist judges jumps up and decides that “legally” means not only “in accordance with established law”, but now includes “because I say so, since x-y-z outcome is obviously more desirable than the results would be if we remain bound by established law.”

I thought I understood that legal decision-making relies heavily upon precedent. Marriage has been understood as one-man/one-woman for the preponderance of European and American history. Why does this one judge get to establish a NEW precedent? Not only the precedent that the State can now override social/ religious/ historic norms regarding family — and thus change the essential nature of society’s foundational unit, but also the precedent of creating new meanings to apply to long-established, well-understood words.

I shudder to think of the “brave new world” we’re going to wind up with if the meaning of words is constantly shifting, depending on who says them, and to whom, and why, and with reference to what situation.

“Hello? Remember me from that vacation in the Bahamas last year. You said we were married? Now we are. I want a divorce. Meet my attorney. I want half of everything.”

” … Rush said today that this is only tangentially about gay marriage. It’s really about a minority dictating to the majority, and Federal judges flouting the clearly expressed will of the voters of California.”
==========

Also — it’s about the Liberal/ Progressive/ Commie-Activist insistence on the meme that the White Capitalist Judeo-Christian West is ALWAYS the oppressor in ANY conflict with ANY ethnic, tribal, social, religious, or other minority group.

Just remember those three words: ALWAYS THE OPPRESSOR. That’s the gist of their worldview. That’s the fulcrum they use to break down a functioning society into a group of competing grievance groups. Also understand that the social breakdown, the resentment and class warfare that they’re engineering with the intent to implode society and usher in “The Revolution”, requires the development of a monolithic State with powerful bureaucracies — and the State will be presented as the only power strong enough to crush the conspiracies of The Oppressors in order to liberate The Oppressed.

So, put briefly, the Lefties are using the gay-rights agenda to accomplish two purposes: (1) to create another splinter group that feels itself “deprived of rights and respect” by the oppressive mainstream society (and thus ratchet down social cohesion by another little notch), and (2) to create another “right” or “entitlement” that ONLY GOVERNMENT can guarantee and enforce (and this enlarges the scope and authority of the State just a little more).

One must ask — WHY? The activists’ argument for “marriage” is that it will allow them to file joint tax returns, make medical choices for each other, inherit from each other, adopt kids together, have social recognition of their commitment, etc. If a new terminology was created that offers EXACTLY THE SAME benefits but has a different name (to maintain the existing cultural understanding of “marriage” *), you’d think that would be a perfect solution. But if any new term is rejected, perhaps it’s not the “legal recognition” that matters most. Maybe, as suggested on other blogs I’ve read, the target is really Established Religion. If ‘The State’ authorizes marriage between same-sex couples (and -just saying- once the definition has been loosened to “any two people who want legal recognition as a couple”, why shouldn’t threesomes ask for and be granted the same “right” to marry?), and if (for instance) the Catholic Church refuses to perform such a marriage because it’s forbidden under their theology, will the Church be charged with denying that couple their “Civil Rights”? To force them to follow “government doctrine” instead of church doctrine, would they be threatened with losing their tax-exempt status? Would some gay couple sue them for discrimination, and would they have to pay punitive damages for “pain and suffering”, over and over again for each new case, until the Church couldn’t afford to keep its doors open? (There are those who say the Uber-Left wants to remove God from the public mind and replace him with the All-Powerful State as the Source of All Good Things.)

As jaded as I’ve become under this administration, that’s starting to sound plausible…

Additionally, there’s some element of “words mean what I WANT them to mean” at play here (see “Alice in Wonderland”); if government –or even one lone judge– can redefine a particular word that used to have one specific, well-understood meaning, and change that meaning into something else entirely –just by fiat– then our laws can be changed or rendered ineffective just by changing the definitions of once well-understood concepts. What if “homicide” becomes “the killing of a member of a protected minority group”? Then the ethnic majority becomes fair game for target practice, since the law regarding homicide applies only to “minority” victims. I think this “redefinition of commonly-understood terms” is a road we DON’T want to go down….

(*) the term “marriage” would retain its original meaning: a “husband” {one man} and a “wife” {one woman} binding themselves to each other by oaths taken “before God and man”, and by their vows creating a new household/ family/ economic/ social unit which is universally recognized as the cornerstone of society.

Part 1 (due process):
1. Marriage is a fundamental right. (by court history)
2. Legislation depriving a person of a fundamental right requires the law to pass “strict scrutiny” in order for the persons deprived of said right to have been afforded “due process.” (14th amendment court history)
3. The state failed to prove that the state had a compelling government interest to restrict marriages to heterosexual couples.

Part 2 (equal protection):
1. Marriage is a fundamental right. (court history)
2. Defining marriage to be between one man and one woman discriminates based on gender. (e.g., Bob is only not allowed to marry Tom because Tom is male).
3. Gender is a “suspect classification”, and the law must pass “strict scrutiny” to show the state has a damn good reason to provide unequal protection under its laws. (court history) (e.g., Tom isn’t protected by spousal privilege when asked to testify against Bob).
4. The state failed to prove that the state had a compelling government interest to restrict protections afforded by marital status based on gender.

As an aside the judge said that, even though it was unnecessary, the law failed to pass the rational basis test (an easier test to pass, usually reserved for questions on less fundamental rights).

My statement that you quoted was an attempt to make a distinction between Prop 8’s effect on gay marriage as opposed to other aspects of gay relationships, such as love and/or sex. Prop 8 only affects marriage.

I do not believe that is a correct statement of what Proposition 8 did. The substantive portion of the proposition is this: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

What that does is preclude activists of all kinds from redefining marriage to be something other than the union of one man and one woman.

At the very least, your statement that it forbade homosexuals from marrying each other begs the question, that persons of the same sex are actually capable of marrying each other in any sense in which marriage has been understood for thousands of years.

See this.