Well, not if they immigrated here, they wouldn’t be. 
And I though SDMB (here) was an international message board :smack:
just like to pipe up and say I found the debate interesting. The current legal thinking does seem to be with Huerta, but of course I agree personally with Gorsnak and polycarp that the system seems wrong. I suspect that Huerta may also feel this way?
As may have been evident in my focus on the economics of state sanction of (heterosexual) marriage, I am suspicious as to whether the state has any business recognizing or getting involved in any marriage. I view marriage largely as a private contractual/religious affair. So I guess I arrive at a point similar to yours: I don’t require the state to privilege heterosexual relationships/couples over homosexual ones (although I do believe that it is completely constitutional to do so, if the state so chooses). We differ only in whether the state should (as a policy matter, not constitutionally) be granting special civil status to (a) everyone or (b) no one.
That’s a useful and valid stance. I for one am grateful for your clarification on it.
Without laying yourself open to flames, would you care to critique how that would be applied to Loving v. Virginia’s assertion that marriage is “a fundamental right”? Granted that that was specifically àpropos anti-miscegenation laws, it still made the broad-based assertion, which ought to translate to something as regards claims of “gays’ rights to marry each other” vs. “states’ powers to regulate marriage.”