It’s not the individual part that’s the problem.
It’s that they have now ruled that COUPLES have equal rights.
You always had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, whether you were gay or straight.
But they have now ruled that your rights are based on your status in RELATIONSHIP to another.
There were no individual legal rights being withheld. The state never gave the “right” to do what felt best to you, just the right to get certain benefits if you formed a monogomous heterosexual relationship.
I can think of no compelling state interest in encouraging same-sex couples. I can define the compelling state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples.
The court has ruled that I can NOT find a compelling reason to encourage one, and not the other.
California needs a marriage amendment. Arnold is fighting it.
The quote I posted is from the state court's opinion; not mine.
The court overturned a ban on homosexual marriage.
It’s not the individual part that’s the problem.
It is the problem. Equating individual sexual orientation as a race or gender issue is flawed simply because race and gender are determined by DNA. Homosexuality is an action. There is no homo gene, as much as the gay community would like to think so.
Also from the quote I posted, where is there a "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship?"
It's just a truly absurd ruling.