Will v. Intellect and SSM

I've been trying since this morning to find some time to respond to Robert Araujo's post of this morning, criticizing the Iowa decision invalidating a ban on same-sex marriage.  I have difficulty understanding the distinction he draws between will and intellect as saying anything other than it is will he disagrees with the arguments raised in the decision.  In my view, the support he gives for his distinction is more than a little questionable.

His post suggests two things he labels products of the will rather than products of reason.  The first is his criticiam of the court's "conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesom environmnet as opposite-sex couples."  It is not clear why he calls that conclusion a product of will rather than reason except for his disagreement with it.  I'm guessing it has something to do with his suggestion that the research relied on by the court is not "specified or identified."  Yet, interestingly, his subsequent post replying to Rob's response to his earlier post offers no evidence for why "it is clear from [his] point of view, [that] same-sex couples cannot offer, in spite of all best efforts, what the opposite-sex couple can to children."  I'm finding it difficult to understand why his conclusion here is any more a product of intellect (or less a product of will) than the court's conclusion on this issue.

His second piece of evidence is the court's discussion of "Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage."  He characterizes the court as suggesting that "not all religious views are impermissible."  However, the court does not say, as he suggests it does, (a) some religions oppose; (b) religion is not a permissible basis; but (c) some religions reach the opposite conclusion and we rely on those.  Instead, the court says (a) some religious groups oppose; (b) some relgious groups reach the opposite conclusion; and (c) this contrast of opinions supports not using religious based rationales to test a statute's constitutionality.  I agree that Robert's characterization of the opinion makes it sound silly; it is, however, not an accurate characterization.