No, they're the ones who think it has something to do with equality, which is an entirely separate and irritating argument in its own right.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
They're called domestic partnership laws. Separate but (not really) equal.
I am more optimistic than most about the CA case working it's way through the federal courts. I think it was Scalia who acknowledged that same-sex marriage and gay rights would have strong case if it were an equal protection issue.
The United States is not a pure democracy. If so, everything would be put to a simple majority vote. The foundation of our government, specifically the Constitution is that there are core aspects of our society that should not be put to a simple majority vote. The Constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority, which is why a Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3's vote.
Sadly, many states lag behind and allow basic human rights to be put to a simple majority vote. That is very sad to see in America today.
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!