In Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, we struck down a law prohibiting interracial marriages. The majority places great reliance on the Perez courts statement that the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of ones choice. (Id. at p. 715.) However, Perez and the many other cases establishing the fundamental right to marry were all based on the common understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 54-63.) The majority recognizes this, as it must. (Id. at p. 66.) Because those cases involved the traditional definition of marriage, they do not support the majoritys analysis. The question here is whether the meaning of the term as it was used in those cases must be changed." Justice Corrigan
She writes better than I do and hopefully you will understand that your analogy fails constitutionally.
The majority determined the analogy does hold. Dissenting judicial opinions are always worth reading, but often the minority opinion for good reason.