A White House spokesman:

The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.

John Aravosis:

Did the White House just say that they agreed with the federal court's reasoning that "no rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." Really? I doubt it. I think the White House just tried to have its cake and eat it too - sound supportive, but not dare embrace the decision itself. But now that they've weighed in, and tried to make it look like they're on our side in this case - they are such great self-proclaimed champions of LGBT equality, they'd have you remember - it's time for the White House to answer the question, do they agree with the ruling or not? Maybe you should sign our open letter to the President and ask him.

Nate Silver wonders if marriage equality will become a campaign issue:

My best guess is that the Tea Party will largely continue to shirk the issue, but that the Republican Establishment will be fairly happy to engage it. The real battle, however, may come in 2012, when the Supreme Court could be about ready to take up the case. The leading indicator may be the reactions of the major Presidential hopefuls. For instance, will Sarah Palin produce a tweet or Facebook post containing the the phrases "activist judge" or "judicial activism" within the next 24 hours? It may depend on which type of conservatives -- the tea- partiers, or the movement conservatives of the Republican Establishment -- that she ultimately wants to affiliate herself with.

Brian Brown, President of NOM:

With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.

Ted Olson David Boies, lawyer for the plaintiffs:

 This decision grants rights to be married. As the court held, there is no harm to anyone’s rights as a result of this decision. In fact, it increases the stability and value of marriage for our society. No legitimate interest of the state in discriminating against a group of our citizens. That’s what even the defendant’s witnesses admitted, and that’s what the judge found. Everyone oughta read this opinion. It’s long but clear and sets the facts forth that everyone in this country might think a bout. I’d challenge anyone putting out those kinds of press releases (speaking to NOM) to read this opinion and tell me what they disagree with and what they have left to say. Shouldn’t just ignore this opinion, but take a look at this opinion.

Newt Gingrich:

Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.

Alvin McEwen addresses Prop 8 supporters:

There is a reason why this country has checks and balances. And there is a reason why people can’t arbitrarily vote on the rights of others without having to defend this vote in the logical arena of courts, where you can’t invoke panic by proverbially yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

In the courts, you must defend your position. And in the long run, you couldn’t.

William Jacobson:

In this case, the Judge seems to be trying too hard to insulate the opinion, and I doubt that on such a momentus finding of a new constitutional right for same sex marriage that an appeals court, much less the U.S. Supreme Court, will care much about the credibility of witnesses as a basis for a legal ruling.

Rob Tisinai:

For all of NOM’s fretting over the institution of marriage, this decision only has a day-to-day impact on those of us who were robbed of our rights in November 2008.  None of my hetero colleagues are running around in a panic because their marriages have been redefined or devalued or deinstitutionalized.  They were married before.  They’re married in the same way now.  And no amount of scary propaganda from NOM is going to change that.

The Confluence:

CNN says the motion by the anti-gay forces for a stay of the judge’s order has been granted by the district court. That’s not surprising, but it’s too bad that marriages can’t go forward right now.

Brian Devine:

The elephant in the room is now the question of a stay.  Yesterday, in anticipation of losing, the anti-equality Intervenors filed a motion asking the Court to stay its decision pending appeal.  In other words, they argue that since an appeal is inevitable, the Judge should not enforce his ruling until after the inevitable appeal is exhausted.  Judge Walker has not yet ruled on that motion.  Even if Judge Walker denies the stay, the Intervenors will ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to issue an immediate stay of the decision.  In a case like this, a stay is very likely.  It remains to be seen whether Judge Walker will grant the stay or if that issue will be decided by the Ninth Circuit.

Adam Bink:

It’s only judicial “arrogance” or “activism” when they don’t like the decision. District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down popularly supported gun control laws, legislated by the duly elected representatives of the people in DC? Not judicial activism at all.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.