There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose.
If a group of persons wishes to form a commercial venture they must comply the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern corporations. If a group of persons wishes to form a personal conjugal venture they must comply with the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern marriages. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
In several States citizens have followed the legal procedures required in that State, procedures enacted by the elected legislature, to have placed before the voters a proposed amendment to the State Constitution. To have such a proposed amendment placed on the ballot is no small undertaking, typically requiring a large number of signatures collected in each district. The proposed amendment must then be adopted by the voters, typically with a requirement that 60% or more voters must approve for the amendment to be adopted.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition. No advocate of this novel definition has followed the laws enacted by the elected legislature to have this novel definition incorporated into the laws. Instead they have claimed that they have been deprived of a right.
The advocates of this novel definition have not been deprived of any right.
The advocates of this novel definition are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
Opinions regarding the definition are immaterial, this is a question of rule of law and directly concerns every Person and State.
This novel definition has been imposed upon Society by small number of persons who abuse the power vested in their Office and exert that power beyond their authority.
Unelected persons beyond control of the People imposing novelties upon Society is tyranny and contrary to the fundamental principles of this country.
Judges are not Legislators. For judges to impose upon society a novel definition, to aid the advocates of the novel definition to obtain what they could not obtain Legislatively is tyrannical and beyond the authority of their Office. The opinion of these judges can and must be ignored.
The obnoxious and unbridled arrogance of the Judicial branch of the Federal government must be checked by the States.
I understand your argument and you present it well. I agree with much of it.
I think that if I were in this lady’s position, I would resign and run for a different office at the next opportunity. ;-)
I don't see how this can be the case. So if a heterosexual couple wants to get married and is free to do so by any objective measure, what happens if an elected legislature tells them that they can't?