So let me get this straight. You believe that judges, when facing a law that is unclear on a subject, should interpret it to mean what they want it to mean, and rule accordingly? Or should they take a narrow interpretation of the law, ruling simply on what it says?
In otherwords, are you for judicial activism or against it? Do you believe judicial activism is good when it suits your purposes?
If they're going to err, they should err on the side of life - a God givin right in the constitution. This ruling also would include men. Men are more apt to be infected by the AIDs virus through homosexual behavior.
In this case, they favored the deathstyle, rather than the lifestyle.
The moral fabric supports the constitution, because when all morals are gone, why not lie about everything? Who will care? Who will be able to condemn it? The moral? No, they're politically incorrect.