…Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote;…

I would completely agree that Fundamental rights should not be submitted to a vote. But one can not assume that Marriage to someone of the same sex is a Fundamental Right. There is no law preventing someone with a homosexual from marriage with someone of the opposite sex which by definition is what marriage is.

…the government has a rational reason to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. They said because marriage is likely to result in children, the state wants to encourage both birth parents to raise their children within a stable household…

This is one small piece of the arguement it is not the crux of the matter.

…Supporters of the ban are clearly motivated by moral disapproval of homosexuality. Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians…

It’s more than just moral disapproval. It’s definitional. No one is denying rights to those who have a homosexual attraction, they have all the same rights as I including, but not limited to, the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex.

…same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples…

No one is preventing two people from loving each other, no one is making a judgement of inferior, equal, or superior. That is not the issue.

…Tradition alone cannot form a rational basis for a law…

Agreed as there have been bad traditions in time. Only a rational view of the natural law can be a basis for a law.

…The idea of restricting marriage to one man and one woman was an artifact of a foregone notion…

Marriage by definition is for one man and one woman. If it is not then what else should we open it up to? One Man and One Dog? One Woman and One Tree? The idea of calling two memember of the same sex married is insanity. Can I marry the Holy Bible? Why not I really love it?

Lastly I’m not sure if the comments that Mr. Churchman posted were written by him. From the looks of it, it appears to have been copied and pasted into the comment box. I’m all for gather help in forming and spreading ideas, but it would be nice if authors of comments would use their own comments or atleast referenced where the text came from.

Supporters of the ban
argue that the government has a rational reason
to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.
They said because marriage is likely to result in children,
the state wants to encourage both birth parents to raise their children
within a stable household.
Same-sex and opposite-sex couples are of equal quality.
The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders
are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.

Supporters of the ban
are clearly motivated by moral disapproval of homosexuality.
Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis
on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians,

The evidence shows conclusively that a ban on gay marriage enacts,
without reason,
a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.

Tradition alone cannot form a rational basis for a law.

The idea of restricting marriage to one man and one woman
was an artifact of a foregone notion
that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

Rather than advancing it,
the ban harms the state’s interest in equality.
It mandates that men and women be treated differently
based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.
Based on evidence produced at the trial,
same-sex marriage would have no impact on society
or the institution of marriage.
The state of California had no interest in waiting
and no practical need to wait
to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.