In April 2023, the state of Florida enacted a revision to its adoption laws to direct all state adoption agencies to prioritize the placement of children with opposite-sex married couples before same-sex married couples. The state claimed that this was enacted in order to provide a better home for adopted children so that they would not be subjected to societal disapproval of their home and family life. Steven and Ryan Thompson are a same-sex married couple who are seeking to adopt a child in Florida. They sue, alleging that the law violates the Due Process Clause by failing to provide the same benefits to same-sex couples as opposite-sex couples and the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. In its response, Florida makes three arguments. First, the state alleges that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, so it is not a violation of the Due Process Clause to treat same-sex married couples differently. Second, the state argues that the Equal Protection claim should be dismissed because laws impacting sexual orientation should receive only the lowest level of review. Third, the state argues that even if a higher level of review is applied, the state could pass that. You are a federal district court judge hearing this case. How would you decide it? Note that you must address all three of Florida's arguments even if your answer to an earlier argument would resolve the case by itself. Provide your holding and reasoning- be sure to rely on and cite the relevant case law.