Drum doesn't think the Supreme Court will uphold Judge Walker's decision:

[Walker] essentially ruled that bans on same-sex marriage are nothing more than an "artifact" of history, and I have severe doubts that this is going to withstand scrutiny. At the Supreme Court level, the briefing attorneys won't be limited in their presentation of the law, and all they have to do is show some rational reason for existing bans. It doesn't have to be a great reason, and it doesn't have to be a reason that anyone mentioned at the district level, just one that's not plainly looney. I'm not sure that Vaughn was persuasive in ruling that no such reason exists.

Here's where Walker may have over-reached:

If you think genders still have any distinct role in society at all, then there's a rational basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The question here is: what does a distinct role mean? I'm a strong believer that men and women are deeply different and yet I do not and cannot see that as a reason to oppose marriage equality. Why? Precisely because such differences are too profound to be somehow weakened by a tiny proportion of the population being included in an institution no longer designed to perpetuate men's control over women. It's when you really break down this argument that you find there is none - except an expression of heterosexual superiority. Maybe that feeling is what this is all about. Maybe that feeling will prevail. But it is not a reason to keep 2 percent of the population in a second class position, when including them would cause no harm to the majority at all.

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