So they are against adoption?

And they think two people have to be married to 'produce' children?

I'm actually embarrassed for these morons that had the temerity to forward this ruling to the Supreme Court. They truly are delusional.

The reality is that changing the meaning of marriage to that of “any two persons” will transform the institution profoundly, if not immediately then certainly over time

Way to confuse facts with conjecture. The reality is that it hasn't transformed immediately anywhere. There are no ifs.

Quite apart from whether the Court would take it at this point, should they take it… This neanderthal judgment would definitely benefit from the 'sober second thought' of the appeals court, before the Supreme court considers it.

Is this the right (best) 'right to marry' case?

Will the Perry plaintiffs weigh in on whether the Court takes this case (I believe they can do that), and would they favour or oppose it at this time?

They really start to dive into it starting in page 27 of .pdf

the irreplaceable foundation of the optimal childrearing mode

Although interacting with and influenced by other institutions such as law, property, and religion, marriage in our society is a distinct, unitary social institution and does not have two separate, independent existences, one “civil” and one “religious.”

In material ways, genderless marriage will be an institution radically different from the manwoman marriage institution.3 This radical difference between the two possible marriage institutions could not be otherwise: fundamentally different meanings, when magnified by institutional power and influence, produce divergent social identities, aspirations, projects, or ways of behaving and thus different social goods. To say otherwise would be to ignore the undisputed effects that social institutions have in the formation and transformation of individuals.4 The reality is that changing the meaning of marriage to that of “any two persons” will transform the institution profoundly, if not immediately then certainly over time as the new meaning is mandated in texts, in schools, and in many other parts of the public square and voluntarily published by the media and other institutions, with society, especially its children, thereby losing the ability to discern the meanings of the old institution.

We demand the right to keep telling gays how evil and vile they are because the Bible says so! To transmit the meaning, but not the word religion, they used the word "Doctrines" in place of Religion. page 30 of the .pdf
Second, at the same time, a constitutionally mandated genderless marriage regime will effectively advance a particular conception of the moral equality of forms of
sexuality, a conception grounded in the influential “comprehensive doctrines”8 of many Americans, particularly among the Nation’s elites, but one contested by the comprehensive doctrines of many other Americans.

Basically- we want to keep societal disapproval of sexual minorities, if gays can marry straight couples won't want to AND they will somehow stop making babies, granting entrance into the institution of Civil Marriage will change it (but I didn't notice them mentioning Loving v Virginia do you?) and make it less desirable to straight couples. Big argument on the David Blankenhorn "de-institutionalization of Marriage" most of their brief is on that. What have I missed? Oh yes CIVIL MARRIAGE must look like HOLY MARRIAGE, in other words the churches "own" the definition of Civil marriage not the Law.