An Executive Order (which would almost certainly affirm the rights of illegals) takes about 15 minutes and the stoke of a pen. Since the Beginning, only two EOs have ever been overturned (the Supreme Court has to do that).

South Americans aren’t the only ones taking advantage of our generosity. For years, South Koreans have been coming here – on tours organized for the purpose – of giving birth to American citizens – and also citizens of South Korea.

That makes the kids ineligible for serving in their Army, and when they grow up, they can always come here. (S. Korean law has changed a few times over the years.)

That doesn’t even begin to follow. First, it presupposes that straights are largely conflicted.

Well, duh. That’s what “to the extent you think his ruling was substantively wrong” means. To the extent you do NOT think his ruling was substantively wrong, i.e., you agree with his conclusion that allowing gay marriage will not have a significant impact on straight marriage, then you should be responding to the other argument instead.

Second, it assumes that the straight/gay axis is the point of contention when it could just as easily be Christian versus secular. In which case a Christian judge would be as objectionable.

And in which case, pigs would also fly. Christians may have a moral objection to gay marriage that atheists do not, but neither has a personal stake in the matter by reason of his views. Gay Christians who believe gay marriage is wrong have the same right not to marry whether the law is upheld or not. Gays of all faiths, or none, who do believe in gay marriage either have the right to marry or they do not, depending on the outcome of this case. Everyone else just has a ruling they either do or don’t agree with. Big difference.

Third, you assume that the issue of whether gay marriages might undermine some straight marriages (how?) is some kind of legal argument.

An issue isn’t an argument, and “how” is irrelevant. The point is that gay marriage either undermines straight marriage or it doesn’t. If it does, then we all have a personal stake in the issue. If it does not, only gays do.

And lastly, you ignore the counter argument that “domestic partnerships” in lieu of “marriage” are far more likely to harm the institution of marriage by cheapening it with a lite version (which could lead straights to be more supportive of gay marriage than some gays are).

And lastly, you ignore that domestic partnerships, and whatever impact they may or may not have on traditional marriage, have zero/zip/nada to do with the question of whether Judge Walker should have recused himself from the case.

Other than that, your argument is spot on.