Concerning the Proposition 8 annulment by Judge Walker, I must say that I have a fascinating amount of mixed feelings within me, considering that part of me is conservative, while part of me is libertarian.

I've always reconciled any differences by preferring that civil issues be principally settled by the 10 Amendment of the Constitution; that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I don't like the government slinking around in controversial moral gray areas such as abortion, religious practices, or gay marriage. Hence, my first reaction to the California decision knee-jerked towards the fear that my favorite amendment had been usurped in a classic case of liberal judicial activism. In gaining some context however, I learn that Judge Walker is in fact more of a libertarian persuasion (appointed by Ronald Reagen in fact). To my surprise, what I find instead of a argument rooted in pseudo-psychology notions of fairness, is indeed a logical, valid and truly compelling argument that grounded in the Constitution of the United States, namely, the equal protection of under the 14th.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

After some research however, I've come to learn of where this argument of equal protection comes from as I better understand that what the conservative in me has long pondered: why are civil unions considered unsatisfactory for homosexuals. As it turns out, a civil union is not treated by the Federal Government in the same manner that a full marriage license is.

So I can somewhat see where the judge is coming from. Nonetheless, the lingering sense of distrust over a court taking sides in the debate still permeates, as I am sure it does for many constitutional conservatives in the nation.

~David Morris~