The fact that you would equate something like the right to marry with the right to have milkshakes is disturbing, dude. Rights are not arbitrary. They are not doled out according to personal tastes. (Hey, I don't like milkshakes. Does that mean I don't like human rights?) They have evolved with thought and time and conscience. We recognize certain things as taboo--murder, theft, etc.--just as surely as we recognize things as (secularly) sacred--love, respect, etc. Our self-awareness is that these things are not owed but owned by every person by virtue of their sentience. Milkshakes? Really? That's the best you could do? You've become the strawman in making not only a faulty analogy but a heartless one.
If someone decided tomorrow that milkshakes were a fundamental right, that wouldn't make it so. But 90% of humanity (save sociopaths and their ilk) recognize that love and the right to love as you will (with consenting partners) is fundamental--it is inseparable (except in the aforementioned outlier cases) from our basic humanity. It is something we are born to cultivate. (Procreation of successful human beings often depends on it.) It is human, in other words, and something we have the right to acquire and, once acquire, have respected. If people are so flawed as not to do so on an individual level, we, as a society interested in furthering human rights, need to be sure some legal protection is there.
Milkshakes? A beverage more synthetic than nylon (in most cases) is a fair comparison to love? Science H. Logic.
(And my reading, as a non-lawyer, is not that the Court demanded gay marriage for all, only that you could not, within California, deny rights that are sex-blind in the legalese to people who chose to exercise those rights on the "wrong" sex. This is still not the "judicial activism" that crazed conservatives love to howl about. This is looking at the law, at the separate-and-therefore-inequal, and acting in the interests of equality, which is in the interests of any state.)
no subject
If someone decided tomorrow that milkshakes were a fundamental right, that wouldn't make it so. But 90% of humanity (save sociopaths and their ilk) recognize that love and the right to love as you will (with consenting partners) is fundamental--it is inseparable (except in the aforementioned outlier cases) from our basic humanity. It is something we are born to cultivate. (Procreation of successful human beings often depends on it.) It is human, in other words, and something we have the right to acquire and, once acquire, have respected. If people are so flawed as not to do so on an individual level, we, as a society interested in furthering human rights, need to be sure some legal protection is there.
Milkshakes? A beverage more synthetic than nylon (in most cases) is a fair comparison to love? Science H. Logic.
(And my reading, as a non-lawyer, is not that the Court demanded gay marriage for all, only that you could not, within California, deny rights that are sex-blind in the legalese to people who chose to exercise those rights on the "wrong" sex. This is still not the "judicial activism" that crazed conservatives love to howl about. This is looking at the law, at the separate-and-therefore-inequal, and acting in the interests of equality, which is in the interests of any state.)