actually that was not the way.
The judge relied on the ABA's revision of the domestic relations law where marriage was based on adult sex acts and children were mere "accessories" to breeding couples.
She essentially ignored all law and ration and just ruled by fiat. She tried to diguise her pronouncment by releasing the opinion (which she, contrary to tradition, wrote all alone with zero peer review) on the aniversary of Brown vs Board in order to give sanction to the born homosexual myth as analogous to the bogus skin color argument.
There is no "law" to support the mass opinion. Only political fiat.
Thanks for response - I didn't know many of the details.