Women and children, to put it gently, are at stake. The opinion--which hopefully will be overturned--states clearly that the judge felt that there was no compelling reason for the State of California to deny the right to marriage to homosexual couples.
However, marriage and family law in general is not predicated on the state recognizing relationships, being interested in people falling in love, or even being able to get a joint checking account without shame (actual example from the case). Rather, marriage and family law is designed to provide a straightforward framework for what happens when a family falls apart, in order to protect the interests of the weaker vessels in a family.
So what has this judge argued? Effectively, the interests of women and children are of no interest to the judge. We won't see the side effects immediately, but if the decision stands, we will see them.
Here's a more scholarly analysis from the HSLDA on the same topic. Again, if you are a woman or child, or have a woman or child you'd like to protect from the state and others, this is a horrendously dangerous decision to you. The state is ever more working to infringe on the special domain of the family.
Update: WND reports that the judge is an open homosexual, raising the question of why he did not recuse himself in a case where he obviously has a personal interest. Sounds like reason to vacate his decision, and quite frankly also to remove him from the bench.
Football Roundup - Football this weekend was a lot more interesting than politics. It often is. So let's talk football. - While readers of this blog know that I am a Pack...
5 hours ago