Maybe not.
"I have a ceremony to attend," quoth one, "at dawn to-morrow, in the Quirinal valley." "What is the occasion?" "No need to ask: a friend is taking to himself a husband; quite a small affair." Yes, and if we only live long enough, we shall see these things done openly: people will wish to see them reported among the news of the day. - Juvenal
This was circa 120 A.D. - well after Nero.
The State has no right to govern lives and/or the private conduct
between consenting adults.
Re:
"limitation of marriage licenses to unions between a man and a woman does not bear a real and substantial relation´ to any cognizable public interest, nor does the refusal to license homosexual unions serve a legitimate public purpose."
That State provided marriage certificate allows two individuals that have
sworn and pledged to remain together and share as one everything in
life, the benefits of all others that make that same pledge.
It is a legal agreement provided by the State, and to that effect can not
be limited in a prejudicial manner.
A "driver's license", a license to operate a business, etc, can not be
denied to an individual over reasons of prejudicial nature.
A license is provided to legitimize all benefits that are granted for all
those having that State provided license.
So what's the big deal? Isn't freedom and equality under law mandated
by our Constitution? That's what this Country is all about, isn't it?