DFS, The California courts, along with the federal courts, have long recognized the right to marriage as a fundamental civil right.

The question in the court case was whether an essential part of the definition of the word "marriage" can validly be "male-female only". In California, the answer found in the constitution was "No." While history might suggest that this is a valid restriction of the scope of that right, the equal protection jurisprudence in the state overrides such historical considerations, invalidating any such scope limitation. The definition of marriage can include many things, but not the presumption of heterosexuality - that is what the California courts found, and it ought to be what other courts find, as well.

However, at the moment, most people and courts are content to think of it this way: Marriage is a fundamental civil right, yes, of course it is - heterosexual marriage, that is.

But go ahead and say I'm throwing a tantrum. I'll take you very seriously, I promise.