such regulations may not infringe on an individual’s fundamental constitutional rights. Defendants counter that it is the State’s right to define marriage free from federal interference. They assert that the issues before this Court are “inherently political questions” and not “constitutional issues.” Oral Arg. Tr. p. 32. While Texas has the “unquestioned authority” to regulate and define marriage, see Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693, the State must nevertheless do so in a way that does not infringe on an individual’s constitutional rights. See id. at 2692 (noting that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage may vary from state to state but are still subject to constitutional guarantees); see Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 620, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l,
holding that our federal constitution undoubtedly imposes constraints on the states power to control the selection of ones spouse holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution recognizing that state constitution imposes more stringent limitations on power of state to inquire into lawful associations and speech than those imposed by federal constitution holding a defendant is liable as a control person if the defendant had the power to control the general affairs of the entity primarily liable at the time the entity violated the securities laws but declining to decide whether power to control means simply abstract power to control or actual exercise of the power to control internal quotations omitted holding that individual states may    construe their own constitutions as imposing more stringent constraints on police conduct than does the federal constitution