The judge in this case thinks it was proved at trial that same-sex marriage will not amount to a sweeping social change. He thinks it is "beyond debate" that same-sex marriages will have no detrimental effects on the institution of marriage. Can anyone really believe that such things can be proved by witnesses in a courtroom?
Lund notes, that in Walker's view, a majority of Americans, including our President and Vice President, are in the grip of an irrationality that is tantamount to bigotry.
In today's New York Times, Ross Douthat summarizes what the debate is really about:
But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their potential fruit.
But based on Judge Walker’s logic — which suggests that any such distinction is bigoted and un-American — I don’t think a society that declares gay marriage to be a fundamental right will be capable of even entertaining this idea.
This makes same sex marriage a subject on which reasonable people can differ. The reductionism exhibited by Judge Walker obfuscates and coarsens our discourse.