Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Lemur]

Considering that he'd originally wanted to air the whole proceeding on YouTube, it really sounds like he was more interested in a show trial than a fair hearing of both sides.

From what little I've read, it looks as though the defendants didn't really show up, hence the one-sided ruling. They promised something like twenty-two specific harms that same-sex marriage caused; they provided none. They promised expert testimony; they provided none. In judicial terms it was a no-show shut-out.

We have an adversarial system of justice. What to do when one team throws the game?

[Xiahou]

We have an adversarial system of justice. What to do when one team throws the game?

Write a sensible ruling.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Write a sensible ruling.

How can you write a sensible ruling for both sides when there is only one side? Make up valid points for the Proposition 8 legal team? That's not his job. His job is to rule in favor of the side with the most convincing argument, whether we like it or not Prop 8 failed to have a better argument (or in this case an argument going by the judge's 138 page report).

[Xiahou]

How can you write a sensible ruling for both sides when there is only one side?

He could explain in detail how Prop.8 violated the US Constitution instead of prattling on about how gay marriage will be beneficial to society and how all the haters have bad arguments. It's like the judge had it 180 degrees backwards and thought it was the defense that had the burden of proof and not the plaintiff. Here's where the plaintiff said how great gay marriage will be and you didn't disprove any of them, so you lose.
That's not what the case was about.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

He could explain in detail how Prop.8 violated the US Constitution instead of prattling on about how gay marriage will be beneficial to society and how all the haters have bad arguments. It's like the judge had it 180 degrees backwards and thought it was the defense that had the burden of proof and not the plaintiff. Here's where the plaintiff said how great gay marriage will be and you didn't disprove any of them, so you lose.
That's not what the case was about.

Don't they always comment on more than just the constitutional part?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How can you write a sensible ruling for both sides when there is only one side? Make up valid points for the Proposition 8 legal team? That's not his job.

Actually, in appelate law at the constitutional level, judges are expected to ask critical and probing questions of the advocates and to more or less cross-examine their assertions. Effectively, the judge should have "argued the other side" as part of her/his query into the complaint's constitutional implications. I have not read the transcript, so I acknowledge that the judge may have done just that.

[a completely inoffensive name]

He could explain in detail how Prop.8 violated the US Constitution instead of prattling on about how gay marriage will be beneficial to society and how all the haters have bad arguments. It's like the judge had it 180 degrees backwards and thought it was the defense that had the burden of proof and not the plaintiff. Here's where the plaintiff said how great gay marriage will be and you didn't disprove any of them, so you lose.
That's not what the case was about.

Did you even the report? If so, quotes please that support your statement.

Actually, in appelate law at the constitutional level, judges are expected to ask critical and probing questions of the advocates and to more or less cross-examine their assertions. Effectively, the judge should have "argued the other side" as part of her/his query into the complaint's constitutional implications. I have not read the transcript, so I acknowledge that the judge may have done just that.

He did. For every point that the Prop 8 supporters brought up he challenged the Prop 8 opponents to prove that it was false, otherwise there would be a reasonable basis to deny same sex marriages. It turned out that that every point brought was proven false.