The jurisprudence of racial equality is the jurisprudence of ALL equality. Equal protection and due process do not apply only to race. Furthermore, while one purpose of marriage may be for the conception and raising of children (actually a religious construct of marriage, not a civil construct), but marriage serves many other purposes, economic stability is just one example. If the state is going to license marriages (as it has done traditionally) it MAY not do so in a way that unconstitutionally discriminates. There are two options: 1) get the state out of marriage altogether and switch to civil unions for everyone, while allowing churches to perform marriage ceremonies; or 2) allow gays and lesbians to the right to marry. I personally feel strongly about marriage as an institution with deep pristiq vs paxil meaning (no matter the sex of those entering into that institution), so I would prefer to keep marriage available to everyone, in a church or out. The opinion is actually simply written, so I have no reason why you fail to comprehend it. Huh? Please go take a community college class in US government. You might learn a thing or two about the constitution. It is true that conservatives do not have a party they can vote for which will reliably nominate ideological judges. Republican nominees can go either way, unlike the lock-step liberals the Democrats always seem to find. dsimon:don't know if you're still reading this but I'll answer your question: "does anything go as long as proponents of legislation claim it's a "moral" issue for them (as long as there is no conflict with a specific constitutional provision)?"I don't care whether proponents claim their issue is "moral" or not. The majority rules, as limited only by the text of the constitution. I understand judges need to interpret and apply that text, but they should stick as close to what it meant when it was written as humanly possible. Note that the constitution specifically reserves issues it has not addressed to the people and the states. The Feds should not touch what has not specifically been given them. If a stupid majority uses their prerogatives to turn their state into a hell-hole, people will move to another. BTW Judge Walker was appointed by former Pres. George W. Bush. He's a REPUBLICAN. Fanatics and whoever else wants can turn out en force in November--but that does not (or ought not) sway judicial decisions gsk paxil based on findings of fact. If the only studies you will accept are of unlimited geographical and temporal nature, you will be waiting forever. It is the nature of science to study what it is possible to observe.As far as I can tell, Hogg et. al. 2001 is a letter to the editor (not peer reviewed). Are you referring to something else? This letter does not revise the life expectancy data from their 1997 work, but does make the points I mentioned in my post -- that increased retroviral use has probably lessened the impact, etc. So, until the next peer-reviewed mortality study is released the 1997 work stands, with the caveat I so meticulously included.What happened to Malibu Niki -- didn't like my citation? Simple, the Dog would have no say in the matter, opposite and same sex couples must agree to get married. One simple word consent. Actually, I am right. The reason employers can't put "white workers only" signs up is because of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act--and is enforced by the EEOC. Moreover, many state constitutions have more protections than the federal constitution does---D.C. has a Human Rights provision which says you can't be discriminated against because of your weight--and overweight people are certainly not covered by the constitution. The problem here is that so many people use the logic of civil rights developed in the 1950's and 1960's and apply it to GLBT marriage. This is totally inappropriate for two reasons: First, the elements of racial discrimination in the civil-rights era (public paxil glaxosmithkline transportation, education, drinking fountains, etc.) had ZERO logical connection to a person's race. Second, the very concept of race is a subjective one: is President Obama black or white? My kids can't even figure out what race they are, and I've suggested they not bother. With same-sex marriage, sexuality is and always has been a crucial factor in marriage. Marriage condones sex between the couple and condemns sex outside the marriage (more or less effectively) for the very purpose of creating stable families into which both partners can safely invest. Any difference in sexuality is a relevant difference, and particularly a physiological difference which makes natural conception out of the question before they even try, is a relevant difference. Whether a mother or father can be expected in the family is a relevant difference. Second, sex is an objective characteristic (in all but very rare cases) and is easily determined.The jurisprudence of racial equality does not provide a valid precedent for the GLBT marriage question. The Black voters who overwhelmingly supported Prop 8 understood this.