Thomas Jefferson, a deist, and Alexander Hamilton, an Episcopalian, anchored opposite ends of the political spectrum in the early years of the republic but agreed on one basic proposition: The nation's laws must follow God's laws.
U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled last week from a courtroom in San Francisco that "same-sex marriage" is a constitutional right, views Americans who agree with Jefferson and Hamilton as religiously motivated bigots.
"Good and wise men, in all ages ... have supposed that the Deity, from the relations we stand in to Himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever," Hamilton wrote in 1775. "Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind."
A year later, Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and that "to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
In declaring that the Constitution guarantees two men a "right" to marry -- and become parents of children through, if necessary, "assistive reproductive technology" -- Judge Walker said, "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."
"A private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation," he said.
The judge struck down California's voter-approved state constitutional amendment that reserved marriage to one man and one woman as illegitimate under the federal Constitution because, he said, it was based on the voters' understanding of morality.
By the same logic, he could have struck down the laws against theft or murder.
Now, some might say: But thieves and murderers violate the rights to property and life of the people from whom they steal and take the lives. Who are the victims of two men who simply want to "marry" each other? What rights of these victims are violated?
Children form the first set of victims. If the Supreme Court upholds Walker's ruling, many children nationwide will be denied a mother or a father by acts of government.
In his opinion, Walker issued specific "findings of fact" that children do not need both a mother and a father and, by implication, that children have no right to a mother and a father that needs to be respected by the state.
"Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted," he wrote in finding of fact No. 71.