Phillip Blond is more correct than he may know. The origins of Totalitarianism go back to the French Revolution. Under classic liberal enlightenment thought the traditional family is what is called a "intermediary social institution" That is it exist between the naked individual & the State. There are any number of such institutions including Universities, Trade Unions, Religion, Poltical Parites, Press outlets, and the like... These are covered under are "right to free assosiation" under the 1st amendment. The entire collection of these insitutioins, including the family are known as "civil society". Of these "intermediary social insitutions" - marriage & the family has always been considered the primary one. As old as Pericles the family has been considered a bulkwark against state tyranny. Marriage & the family are considered to pre-exist the State and even religion. That neither created marriage, but that it evolved organically. The State did not create marriage, it simply recognizes it as one of our natural rights. That is why & how it became recognized as a fundemental consitutional right and international human right. In the Mass. Goodridge case the Court says in the first paragraph of its decision - "quite simply the State creates marriage" This is no mistake that the Judge in such a prominate case starts off with this argument. If the State creates marriage it can uncreate marriage or redifine marriage. A totalitarian state is considered one who dosent recognize these "intermediary social institutions" - Hence "totalitarian" = total social control by the state. Marriage is the basis of the family and the family is considered to be the ulltimante "intermediary social institutions" - with rights against the State.. All this is well established fact of history and represented well in the case law.

In 2004, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court noted the precedential value of Baker in her Concurring and Dissenting opinion: Lockyer v. San Francisco (2004) 33 C.4th 1055, 95 P.3d 459, 17 C.R.3d 225, 7 Summary (10th) Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v. Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division: Wilson v. Ake, 354 F.Supp.2d at 1302 The Indiana Court of Appeals noted the precedential value of Baker in an opinion upholding Indiana's Marriage Laws: Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division also noted the precedental value of Baker, and noted that it was also the controlling opinion in the State in regards to the equal protection claims on the issue of same sex marriage: Hernandez v Robles 2005 NY Slip Op 09436 Upon appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (The Supreme Court in NY State), the State Supreme Court also recognized the controlling nature of Baker, as to the Federal Constitution: Hernandez v. Robles, 805 N.Y.S.2d 354 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2005) In an opinion upholding Nebraska's Marriage Amendment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cited Baker v Nelson and the authority of States on Marriage Law: Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) Justices Johnson and Sanders of the Washington Supreme Court noted the precedential value of Baker in their opinion : Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) Baker was cited as precedent in Benson v. Alverson, Hennepin County District Court (MN -2011)