The court ruled by 2-1 that the disparate treatment of traditional marriages and gay unions violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently," wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the 2-1 ruling. "There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.

"All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation 'marriage.'

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite sex couples," the court ruled.

However, California is only one of 31 states in which the public has voted to provide constitutional protection for traditional marriage. Nearly 7 million people voted for Prop 8 in 2008. The public took that conservative stand while giving Obama a 24 point margin over McCain.

Yet one gay judge, Vaughn Walker, overturned the vote of millions. And two judges on Appellate Court upheld that decision.

What's wrong, substantively, with the decision?

My first comment may sound shocking. Gays are not really interested in marriage. Look at Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that 4 percent of males are homosexual and 1% of females are lesbian. Of the state's 3.3 million males, there are 132,000 gay men.

However, there have only been 5,000 gay weddings in 8 years, and 40% of them came from out of state. Even if all 10,000 men who "married" were from Massachusetts, that's only 7.5 percent of gays who chose to marry.

I testified on this issue as President of Marriage Savers before the Maryland Senate Judiciary Committee two weeks ago, and asked, "Why even consider a law that is supported by less than one-tenth of 4 percent of the population? Why overturn the definition of marriage that has been in place for thousands of years?"

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley was the first to testify. He said he sought "equal protection of the law," and argued, "It is not right that the children of gay couples could have less protection than other couples in our state."

Less protection? Most same-sex unions are by lesbians, who often have children from a previous marriage. If lesbians marry, the children will no longer have access to their fathers. Those children will have LESS protection in same-sex marriage, not more protection.

"Marriage is the union of a husband and wife for a reason: these are the only unions that can make new life and connect children in love to their mom and dad," testified Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage.

Gay/lesbian unions deprive a child of one gender.

Traditional marriage is exclusive; gay unions are not. According to Brad Wilcox of the National Marriage Project, lifetime infidelity dropped in the 2000s to 16 percent for males and 10 percent for females. By contrast, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, homosexuals have four partners per month.

Is that a healthy environment in which to raise children? I think not.

Another point of my testimony: After Maine's legislature voted for same-sex marriage in 2009, Maine voters repealed the law. Subsequently, two dozen state legislators who voted for it were defeated in 2010. I asked Maryland Senators, "Is that what you want to happen?"

Judges and legislators can defy the public will - but only for a season in America.

Michael J. McManus, President of Marriage Savers and a syndicated columnist.