Drudge reports some of the statements in the decision will be (with my comments in red):
'Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians'...[and people who want to marry dogs and cats...?]
'Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians'...[so therefore we should let them marry? Great logic!]
JUDGE: THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER...[Says who? Where does it say that in the law? This is merely the judge's subjective, personal decision, not one based on law.]
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY...[Another subjective, personal opinion, not one based on law; the statement has no logical basis]Isn't it amazing how wrong the many generations of the past millenia have been? They thought it perfectly reasonable to limit marriage to one man and one woman. And if the right to marry protects an individual's choice of spouse regardless of gender, what's next? Regardless of genus or species?
This, of course, will open the door for polygamy to be recognized along the same lines, which will be convenient for the hordes of Muslim immigrants already here or soon to be invited in.
Update: Drudge Report was correct.