Your guess is correct. Now, back to that equal protection question. Please show how California's marriage law violates equal protection. You keep indicating that equal protection is the constitutional basis for tyranny. So let's hear it. How did state law violate equal protection?
At this point, it has become an issue of integrity. In order to salvage any, you could simply admit that your repeated assertion was baseless and refrain from offering it again. Or an alternative would be to abandon integrity entirely and cling to the lie, repeating it again and again and again while pretending to be immune from the consequences of it. Your call.
A puppy keeps peeing on my leg. Fine, you answered my question, so I'll answer yours. You do know, don't you, that I wasn't "lying" about equal protection but merely stating the basis upon which the SCOTUS (in
Obergefell ) ruled?
Okay, here's the basic deal. Bob and Joe get married in Maryland, where same sex marriage is legal. They later move to Ohio, where their marriage isn't recognized. Meanwhile, I get married in Maryland too, and later move to Ohio. Ohio recognizes my marriage.
Ohio, like most states, imposes an inheritance tax, but waives the tax if one gives their wealth to their spouse. Bob and I both die, and leave our estates to our spouses. But Joe, Bob's spouse, is stuck paying an inheritance tax while my spouse pays nothing.
See, Ohio can't have it both ways. It can apply its inheritance tax waiver with respect to all spouses, if it wants as a matter of public policy to provide a break for married couples and their families. Or it can repeal its inheritance tax waiver and force all spouses to pay the tax. But what it can't do is treat Bob's spouse differently than it treats mine. We were both lawfully married in the United States, and the Constitution guarantees my, and Bob's, natural right to travel and establish our households in any state in the Union we choose - Ohio included. But Bob and his spouse must pay a tax for making such a choice whereas me and my spouse do not.
That's an arbitrary denial of the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection. That's unConstitutional.