Preferential treatment?? Hahahahahaha. Oh god,that's rich. Do explain, my friend, what special privilege would be granted to homosexual couples that wasn't also granted to heterosexual couples.I cited the source for that quote right at the end of it.
I would put it this way: starting with Romer, the justices who have signed on to the homosexual agenda, led by Anthony Kennedy, began to swing into high gear. The majority decision in Romer is a good example of the Supreme Court exceeding its constitutional authority and riding roughshod over the rights of the people of a state. That amendment to the Colorado constitution did not unfairly restrict the rights of homosexuals, nor was there evidence it was inspired by animosity. It was simply an attempt by the people of Colorado to prevent municipal governments from making ordinances that granted homosexuals, but not other people, rights in excess of those available under the state's laws--as several of them had done.
Sure as hell does not comport with the extremely deferential rules the Court itself has established for rational basis review, as set out in the passage I quoted. There is a very good reason for that deference, by the way, which that passage alludes to when it mentions that the Court has no authority to "sit as a superlegislature." And that is respect for the separation of powers, a feature designed into the Constitution as one of a the main checks on abuse of government power. I think Justice Scalia hit it right on the head in his dissenting opinion in Romer:
The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a "'bare ... desire to harm' " homosexuals, ante, at 634, but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are not only unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced (hence the opinion's heavy reliance upon principles of righteousness rather than judicial holdings); they have been specifically approved by the Congress of the United States and by this Court . . . Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive
sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment.
Going by Kennedy's opinions in Romer and Lawrence, particularly, I'd say that if the Supreme Court ever declares a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's most likely that would be its rationale.