A Fine Argument for Gay Marriage, but a Flawed Legal Opinion
1) Why did plaintiffs name the Governator and AG what’s-his-name as respondents?
Uhm… Because they favor that side of the political chasm. Duh.
2)
For all the psychobabble about “equality” that was and is bruited about, why is it that the language is always very careful to distinguish “gay men” or “gays” from “lesbians”.
Example please.
“I ask one question. If marriage is not a right, then why did the defense, the side that was arguing against SSM, not present that as fact in their legal argument?”
A very good question with a very easy answer…because they sucked.
FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!! So the “judicial activism” everyone who loses a case bitches about can actually be as much, if not more, a result of the crappy defense than that of an “activist” judge.
Note that there is criticism of the judge favoring the plaintiff because of gay. If he was straight, and he ruled for the defense, the other side would be able to say the same thing. The only way to get a fair trial by these standard is to either find a hermaphrodite judge, or one that is a eunuch!!! 
