OK, we're getting closer. But the current formulation begs the question of whether a marriage between a man and a man is exactly the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. (Because you are saying that they are equivalent rights, and that your reading of the California Constitution guarantees them to all.)
How you answer that question, once you ask it, depends on what you think marriage is. If you think it's the state saying "Aww, they are in love. Isn't that awesome? We like love. Go them!", then obviously, offering that to only one man and one woman, and not two men, two women, three men, or two sisters are all entirely discriminatory and any such restrictions should immediately be eliminated.
But, somewhat unsurprisingly, this is not the view of marriage that people who think it should be restricted to one man and one woman take. And, therefore, they do not think that the state registering the marriage of a man and a woman is at all the same thing as the state registering a marriage of two men. The two are not equivalent.
How would you define what a marriage is and means, and on what authority?
Re: "The community didn't trust Brendan"
How you answer that question, once you ask it, depends on what you think marriage is. If you think it's the state saying "Aww, they are in love. Isn't that awesome? We like love. Go them!", then obviously, offering that to only one man and one woman, and not two men, two women, three men, or two sisters are all entirely discriminatory and any such restrictions should immediately be eliminated.
But, somewhat unsurprisingly, this is not the view of marriage that people who think it should be restricted to one man and one woman take. And, therefore, they do not think that the state registering the marriage of a man and a woman is at all the same thing as the state registering a marriage of two men. The two are not equivalent.
How would you define what a marriage is and means, and on what authority?