It looks like a split decision based on what I am reading and interpreting from the transcript.

1st. Based on what is in front of the Supreme Court, I don't know if I'd overturn Proposition 8. The argument are meaningful and very honestly argued, carry a very deep problem to the concept of laws and observations in the traditional constitutionalist's concept. Proposition 8 was decided by California voters through plurality against gay marriage without legally breaking up "Civil commitments" or "Civil Unions" in the message of the Proposition.

The legal text was:

"Only Marriage between a man and a woman is valid or Recognized in California"

Sexual Orientation is not a protected class of "persons" under the 14th Amendment; although it could be argued that technically all Americans should be equally treated under the law. However, as the old cases of Segregation like Plessy v. Ferguson has shown (even if legally Brown v. Board had overturned it due to the lack of equal protection or equal facilities from Segregation as a practice, but conceptually "equal and separate" were never overturned), "Civil Unions" can still be equally matched up in state law to traditional "marriage" as they are legal terms, not fundamental or physical differences as long as there is no privilege of marriage that "civil union" is excluded from.

In this case, Marriage can be one man and one woman, but the last part of "is valid" should be struck down.

To differentiate one class of privilege versus another does violate individual rights, however to affirm marriage to one class as a term without privilege does not.

If I were to offer a conservative opinion, I'd give Christians their pound of flesh, but also take what is equally owed back for GLBT proponents, including myself.

Partially Affirmed, with a change in wording, but this one I put as a toss up as Roberts is hard to read on this issue.

2. DOMA....Should be struck down easily. Few of the conservative justices really wanted to defend it. It went against the concept of constitutional observances, it overreached on legislative powers over states, and above all, Congress took upon itself to create separate groups of Americans in violation of Individual rights.

There's a reason why no one wanted to speak on this from the conservative side of the justices, it was a bad law on many levels. Too heavy handed and overreached to the level of allowing the Federal government to mandate moral supremacy.

________________________

Marriage is a word, not the concept of love or relationship. If the "word" is what religious people want to preserve for their own beliefs and creeds, then it is their right to defend the concept on their own definition of "marriage". However, no one should separate group with one side holding privilege and another being held as un-privilege due to precedent, let alone the Federal Government.