Updated : I misstated that Prop 22 changed the state constitution, which is incorrect, it modified the California civil code.

I always figured that the simple solution is to make all unions (same or opposite sex) "civil unions" as far as the law is concerned. Remove the word "marriage" from the argument and leave it to the individuals to refer to themselves as they wish. The whole hangup seems to be because of a word. Well, that and the money and the issue of course. ;)

The trouble with using the 14th is the whole choice or not issue. Currently all people have the same rights under the law, namely everyone is allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex. I think you'd have to prove that sexual orientation is not a choice in order to mount an equal rights case.

You're correct about this involving state law. Specifically the changes to the State Civil Code from Proposition 22, which passed 61%-39% in March 2000.
http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22.htm

>I have to admit that from a pure strict constructionist point of view, you are correct. I would say a pretty strong argument could be made regarding the 14th ammendments equal protection clause, but the argument could not be one of original intent.
>
>Perhaps this is an area where I would like to see judges intervene to protect one's right to enter into a contract without imposition of the tyranny of the majority. It could be argued that since the reasoning against gay marriage is based in religious custom to honor it in law would be a state sanctioning of religious taboo.
>
>But in any case, didn't the ruling refer to a state law and therefore I would assume the reasoning involved interpretation of the rights in the California state constitution (with which i am unfamiliar)
>
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How do you feel about the current gun control case being heard. Its another potential example of judges circumventing the will of the majority to preserve the rights of a minority?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. It shall not be infringed without modifying the Constitution. As I stated in another response, marriage, same-sex or otherwise, is not a right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree, according to the 2nd amendment I should be free to purchase as many and any type of weapon I want but certainly is not the case.
>>>>>
>>>>>Education is not a constitutional right but if the government is going to be in that game they can not discriminate on who receives it and at what level of quality. Why should marriage be different?
>>>>
>>>>Education is not a constitutional right and the government does discriminate on who receives it and its quality. Compare public education in Compton to Bel Air and tell me again how its all doled out evenly.
>>>
>>>So because education is not a constitutional right you are ok if the majority chooses to only provide it to white christian childen? And courts should do nothing to stop that?
>>
>>I'm not discussing what I'm OK with or what "should" be done. I'm pointing out that claiming education is equal as doled out by the government is not valid. As with most of what the government gets involved in, it is inefficient, ineffective and smothers the rights of the citizenry. Why would marriage be any different?
>>
>>If you want my opinion on education I'll offer it, but it seems out of scope for the discussion at present.