In addition, he needs to clarify his ruling on incestuos relationships in the case of adult brother and sister, adult father and daughter, adult mother and son, adult mother with daughter, adult father with son, for the same argumanet can be made that the exclusion is arbitrary and poses no threat to the state.

The fact of the matte is in a democratic society, not the one envisioned by the neo-facist gay and lesbian movement and supported by their gestapo like SS legislative agents, free people have the RIGHT to determine the norms of its institutions and public behaviour. Even more so when the idea of morality is stricken from the procees of law making. Absent any type of inspired mantra of treating others as we wish to be treated, constitutionality can ONLY be decided by popular vote.
For thei is no basis of spirituality or compassion to determine whether or not gender differentation is acceptable or not, the only basis is the will of the people which even in this case, was expressed to ban certain types os state recognized relationships, which they have a right to do by vote as the rule of gender equality was not established as an absolute, unless we are moving on to single restrooms and the elimination of women's athletics and every other 'absolute' erasure of gender differentation.

The 1st thing that the Nazi's did was to sieze the court and argue that their rights of perversion and destruction of the family unit superceded the rights of the common man. They were inspired by the insideous hidden agends of homosexuals and lesbians who strangled the court system in an attempt to justify their deviate lives and seek to establish a robotic generation who would be oblivious to their dysfunction in an attempt to erase what no man, or waoman , has been able to accomplish … their conscience. These are ill people and our courts should be helping them, not empowering their affliction.

Could be worse, you could of thought I was Chris Tucker the annoying actor.

I thought you people thought the earth was only 6,000 years old….hummmmm…fuzzy math I think…

The judge did not say (and NO judge has EVER said) that a family headed by a man and a woman does not serve valid state purposes – a purposefully fraudlent reading on your part – the judge stated that BARRING two people of the same gender from access to a state-granted license which allows them to marry – is unconstitutional and does not further legitimate state concerns.

Perhaps if you were just a TINY little bit more honest (or smarter – you pick) you might get it.

So there.

Hint: what you pastor said last week in church is not a primary source, unless he heads Lambda Legal.

I think you're confusing me with someone else.