Freedom of association.
A core problem in this discussion is complete lack of WHY the state has any interest whatsoever in certifying marriage. There is a reason, that reason inherently limits who can, and the certification guarantees certain benefits intended to balance & facilitate the responsibilities & consequences of that reason. The current issue is due to people utterly incapable (based on literally two bits of information) of invoking that reason, but demanding the government-provided benefits without any possibility whatsoever of producing that which the government is taking an interest in and establishing the sociopolitical institution to facilitate.
If men have the ‘right to marry’ then men must have the right to marry themselves and therefore claim this ‘union’ independently of any other individual.
As the author pointed out claiming there is an individual right to marriage is like claiming the color blue is 10 feet long.
Marriage is not an act or object any individual is capable of and therefore entitled to by the laws of nature. Marriage requires other individuals. Therefore if it is to be said to be a right at all it is not a union.
The only other logical possibility that ‘groups’ may be proclaimed to have rights as the author pointed out is illogical nonsense that would preclude the possibility of individual rights. Being that ‘groups’ must be formed of individuals existing ether at their expense(in the case of forced union) or their consent(in the case of consensual union) in either case as a group they have no rights or existence of their own, apart from the separate and distinct rights and existence of its members which are of course individual rights.
Nor is their formation a product of the group not yet existing but the consent or force of the parties between which it is formed.