It wasn't old, it passed what, a year ago?

One side made a case based on law and precedent.

The other had two points. 1) Gays can't have kids and 2)Think of the children. I'm not making this up, it's all there in the decision.

Maybe what you are talking about was the plan. Maybe they made this case as clear-cut as they did so that national rage would grow and lead to some kind of change to the constitution. When I am in a really bad mood thinking about this stuff, I suspect that sometimes. But the fact remains that the defendants of the proposition did a piss poor job.

The Judge did his job. And he was a Bush appointee, as well, so hardly a paragon of liberal thought.

This is not about a sensationalist activist judge taking the law into his own hands. This is about a law passed by referendum that is completely wrong, morally, ethically, and legally. Whatever the consequences, whatever panicky people do in the wake of all of this, the judge did the right thing, and a law got struck down. It will go to SCOTUS, and based on the ruling made by the Judge, (which has to be proven in error to be overturned) anyone differing would have to say that only marriages that can produce offspring are valid, or that homosexuals are incapable of being good parents.

We'll see what happens after that. But currently? This is the right move. NEVER sacrifice justice for convenience.