  COURT CASES YOUR MOTHER NEVER TOLD YOU ABOUT. urlLink XLRQ notes the failure of the media to mention that the gay marriage issue isn't as uniform as it might seem in the courts. Specifically, he points out Standhardt v. Superior Court of the State of Arizona , 77 P.3d 451. I relied on this case quite a bit in my moot court competition brief in answering the question of whether a state must recognize a foreign state's same-sex union.
The case is important because it finds neither a right to same-sex marriage under either the AZ or US Constitutions and unlike the decision in Goodridge , which found that the Mass. Constitution went BEYOND the US Constitution in what rights it provided, the AZ Constitution mirrors the US Const., at least insofar as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses are concerned.
The AZ Supreme Court in Standhardt also distinguishes Lawrence v. TX as being inapplicable here since the court refused to find a fundamental right in homosexual sodomy, but instead applied rational basis review to strike down the TX statute as irrationally impinging on Lawrence's liberty to engage in private consensual sexual conduct without fear of criminal prosecution. Lawrence also specifically distinguished itself from a (then) hypothetical case where a same sex couple sought formal government recognition for their relationship.
Justice Kennedy in the opinion suggested that in such a case, a statute refusing such recognition would satisfy the rational basis standard of review. Ok, I don't want to write my brief again. (The AZ court also distinguished Loving v Virginia , the interracial marriage case relied on most heavily by proponents of same-sex marriage) Scroll down, I've linked to both it and my point headings. 
