Read the full rulingIt’s difficult to comprehend just how comprehensive this ruling is until you read it.  Judge Walker did a phenomenal job and covered every argument against marriage equality I’ve ever heard.  

Discrimination based on sex – Yes!I am glad to see in this analysis that part of the rationale for the ruling is based on gender, not just sexual orientation. I have often wondered why we don’t argue against “one man/one woman” laws on the basis that gender is not that easily identifiable. And even for people who are clearly of one gender, their actual skills, abilities, personalities, etc. are still not predictable based solely on their gender. Gender is already considered a suspect class, so in my admittedly amateur opinion, that only makes the ruling stronger.  

About the only thing that seemed missed was the First Amendment issue…that there are religions (even Christian traditions) that recognize same-sex marriages and they are discriminated against by certain religions being given selective recognition and approval by the state.

Actually it does address First AmendmentOn pp. 129-30 Walker tackles your question from the opposite direction, dismissing claims that Prop 8 accommodates “the First Amendment rights of individuals and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds.”
But more critical in the decision is to the pointed statement on page 60  that

Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

In essence, the state has no role regulating religious activities absent a compelling public interest and moreover, in the case of marriage, religion has no role in determining access to civil marriage.  

Actually it does address First AmendmentOn pp. 129-30 Walker tackles your question from the opposite direction, dismissing claims that Prop 8 accommodates “the First Amendment rights of individuals and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds.”
But more critical in the decision is to the pointed statement on page 60  that

Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

In essence, the state has no role regulating religious activities absent a compelling public interest and moreover, in the case of marriage, religion has no role in determining access to civil marriage.  

This may be the real hidden gem here…

Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 and laws like it cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny even under the most forgiving legal standard, the “rational basis” test. But he also held that because it discriminates based on sexual orientation, Proposition 8 should be evaluated under the “strict scrutiny” standard – the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, which applies to laws that discriminate on the basis of race. Discussing the way that the law discriminates based on both sex and sexual orientation, he explained that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is “an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage.” And “[t]hat time has passed.” [...]  
Today’s decision only addressed California’s Proposition 8, not federal law, or any other state laws, although much of Judge Walker’s reasoning would also apply to other laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying or otherwise discriminate against LGBT people.

If the higher courts agree to uphold Judge Walker’s ruling, it opens the door to future federal law suits challenging other states’ marriage bans. Perhaps this is the next battleground and next opportunity for full marriage equality that we’ve been waiting for?

Wow! Someone who gets it!Think we could get the Hon. Judge Walker to give a certain President and supposed “Constitutional scholar” a lecture on that concept?

He addresses part, not allThe decision’s First Amendment section says that religious leaders are acting as secular authority for solemnizing marriage.  There’s no mention that by allowing certain religions to trump other religions’ beliefs, they are restricting the UCC, Quakers, and any other denomination that may come along later (expecting ELCA and Presbyterians in the next few years) who already perform same-sex marriages in favor of those who choose not to.

Sorry, that aspect of it doesn’t work.I used to think that the First Amendment thing was a clincher – that churches were being discriminated against because they weren’t allowed to perform same-sex marriages and so therefore it needed to be allowed under the First Amendment.
You need to dig up the Canadian ruling that made same-sex marriages national, because they addressed this issue brilliantly. And it doesn’t work.
The point is that no religion is being discriminated against with regards their religion by denying civil recognition of same-sex marriage It’s a fine point but a critical one. The religious component of all this is not affected by the civil laws.
Denying civil recognition of same-sex marriage doesn’t prevent a denomination from holding religious ceremonies, treating the couple as married for religious purposes, celebrating their relationship, or putting whatever doctrinal meaning they want on it. The law does not prevent a religion from blessing or celebrating the religious aspects of a same-sex relationship.
Catholics can declare a divorce religiously invalid and refuse to perform a second marriage without in any way affecting the civil status of those involved.  And, it isn’t the Catholic approval of an opposite sex marriage that makes it legal – it is the marriage license and filing of the marriage certificate. What the pope thinks is legally immaterial. A religious ceremony without the proper civil paperwork is invalid.
Nor are they treating the different religions differently – they license clergy to perform valid civil marriages.
The Canadian court was extremely clear and elegant about the way they put it, and I do recommend reading it. They were very clear that yes, absolutely, the individuals were being discriminated against, and that yes, absolutely, marriage equality was required. But that the nature of the discrimination was not religious.
Walker didn’t address it, and it’s good that he didn’t.
In California particularly, this is less of an issue than other places, because any citizen can apply for a temporary permit to officiate at a wedding. California, more than most states, doesn’t grant churches or clergy more authority regarding weddings than secular people or groups.
We need less public perception that people are civilly married because a church says so, not more. It’s what’s at the heart of the absurd suggestion you hear all the time that ALL marriages should be civil unions and we should take the church out of it completely – because that is already the case right now.

I agree, but the quote is inaccurate.Walker was very, very careful NOT to say that the case should be evaluated under strict scrutiny because it was sexual orientation discrimination.
He laid out a crystal clear and precise explanation of why it could be evaluated that way, and why, if it were, it would be appropriate, but then deliberately doesn’t.
He states that “the trial record shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority that strict scrutiny was designed to protect” and explains why in very clear detail.
He says that “The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect”
But he then says that he is not using strict scrutiny based on either sex or sexual orientation, because it is not required.
If he had broadly declared LGBT people to be a suspect class and based the ruling on that, it would be far, far, easier to overturn at a higher level. By including all the arguments why it “would be appropriate” but is unnecessary to do so, he did something even more important.
The rational basis failure is more critical, and if the higher courts agree, then his ruling stands, but he has also laid the groundwork that if they DO decide that Prop 8 doesn’t fail rational basis, they would then be required to declare that LGBT people are not a suspect class. Based on the trial record and ruling, they would be left pretty much with “bare animus” in doing so.
It is worth noting, though that he did flat out declare that strict scrutiny was required because marriage has been established as a fundamental right of individual citizens and strict scrutiny is always required when the state limits or denies a fundamental right.